Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Chemical Weapons

Mr. Atkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to his Iraqi counterpart on the use of chemical weapons against its Kurdish population.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): We have repeatedly condemned Iraq for its use of chemical weapons. I made that absolutely clear to the Iraqi Minister of State for Foreign Affairs on 21 September, as did my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster at the highest level in Baghdad earlier this month. We noted with concern last week's television documentary containing further reports of Iraqi CW use in August. It underlines the importance of the international conference to be held in Paris in January to reaffirm the authority of the 1925 Geneva protocol banning CW use.

Mr. Atkinson: As it is now clear that Iraq has perpetrated the most appalling atrocities on its Kurdish population by using poisonous gas, does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that to seek better relations with Iraq at this time is to send a mixed message, namely, that Iraq can get away with genocide in violation of the Geneva protocol to which it is a party? Will my right hon. and learned Friend raise the matter with our European colleagues at the forthcoming Rhodes conference?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: We have certainly been appalled by the suffering inflicted as a result of the large-scale displacement of Kurds from their homes in Iraq. We have proclaimed the evidence of CW use as compelling but not conclusive. It is clear that Iraq has a case to answer, and we have been in the forefront of pressing that case in respect of those barbaric weapons. We want a total ban—that is the importance of the Paris conference.
As to the second part of my hon. Friend's question, there is no way that the Iraqis could have misunderstood the firmness of our position on chemical weapons. As I said, it was underlined by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he was in Iraq a short time ago.
In such a situation, one can do one of two things. One can isolate Iraq and make its unacceptable behaviour more likely, or one can try to establish and maintain a working relationship, to make clear our very strong views on that

aspect of Iraq's behaviour. This matter is one of constant concern. Last week I told the House that it will be permanently on the international agenda, so it may be discussed in one form or another at the Rhodes summit.

Mrs. Clwyd: Why does the Foreign Secretary not follow the lead of the United States Congress, which, when it reconvenes in January, will impose economic sanctions against Iraq? Why will the British Government not do the same? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not see any inconsistency between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office condemning violations of human rights in Iraq, and the Department of Trade and Industry stitching up massive trade agreements with that country without once mentioning the subject of human rights?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: In the last part of her question the hon. Lady misses the central point of my main answer. During the course of my right hon. Friend's visit to Baghdad he took the opportunity to emphasise how strongly we feel about the use of chemical weapons and the importance that we attach to the matter. The hon. Lady is wrong to believe that the United States Congress has passed sanctions legislation. It has not done so. The American Administration are opposed to sanctions, and we believe that that is entirely consistent. It is not likely that any effective consequence will follow from the unilateral imposition of economic sanctions in this case. It would not prevent the use of chemical weapons by Iraq. We shall continue pressing the case as vigorously and energetically as we have done already, being in the forefront of those pressing it, we shall continue in that fashion.

Mr. Bowis: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, apart from a stop to this hideous practice, what the Kurdish people need most is humanitarian aid from the world community? Will he make a commitment on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that that will be forthcoming as a matter of urgency?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The exodus that has taken place has created a major humanitarian problem. We have already contributed some £250,000 for humanitarian assistance, and we have told the Turkish authorities that we are prepared to consider applications for an extension of that in the ordinary way.

Mr. Robertson: The Foreign Secretary says that evidence of Iraq's use of chemical weapons is "compelling but not conclusive"—a grand new phrase to hide the Government's increasingly fudging position. Did he see the programme on Channel 4 last Wednesday night, which brought forward conclusive proof both of the slaughter of the Kurds in northern Iraq and of the use of deadly poisons in those attacks?
Surely there is something indecent in the sight of the Foreign Office condemning the use of chemical weapons, followed by that of a Cabinet Minister going to Baghdad touting for trade and business and doubling trade credits to Iraq, without any linked condition that Iraq desist from the vile slaughter of so many people in the northern provinces.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I entirely understand the deep concern of the House at the allegations of the use of chemical weapons, but I deny absolutely any impression that the United Kingdom has not been in the van of those


pressing this case. In fact, we have been simultaneously denounced by many people in the Arab world for being so far in the forefront of the attack. We have sustained our position. It was we who took the matter up in the United Nations and pressed for an authoritative independent investigation, and we should still like such an investigationas c to take place, but we have received insufficient support from our colleagues in the United Nations. We were ready to welcome Iraq's undertaking not to use chemical weapons either inside or outside the country, given as a result of our representations, and we shall continue to press the case. But it would be wholly foolish, when the rest of the world is continuing to maintain trading relations with a large and important country, for us single-handed and unilaterally to make such a protest.
The House must understand that we are maintaining contact with Iraq and pressing the case against chemical weapons. We are looking at any evidence that is forthcoming, and we are acting more energetically and effectively than any other country.

United Nations

Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what subjects were discussed at recent meetings between Her Majesty's ambassador at the United Nations and the new President of the General Assembly.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: No such meeting has yet taken place. However, Dr. Caputo, in his capacity as Chairman of the United Nations General Assembly, has asked to see our permanent representative to the United Nations, Sir Crispin Tickell. The invitation has been accepted, but no date has yet been fixed.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Are we warming to the Argentines?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: We have been pressing on the Argentines initiative after initiative for movements towards the re-establishment of more normal relations. As I have said many times, the table of my opposite number is groaning with the weight of fresh proposals. For example, as long ago as 1982 we removed all financial and trading discrimination, but the Argentines' response has been disappointing. They are continuing to discriminate against British goods and firms despite all that we have tried to do to press them in the opposite direction.
We are still trying—as I told the House that we were in 1986—to see whether it is possible to establish a multilateral framework for the management of fisheries disputes. We have been looking constantly for a way of normalising relations, but sadly there has been an insufficient response.

Sir Peter Blaker: Will my right hon. and learned Friend convey to the President of the General Assembly and to the United States Administration the dismay of many hon. Members on both sides of the House who are well disposed towards the United Nations at the refusal of a visa to Mr. Yasser Arafat? The Palestine National Council in Algiers went a long way towards accepting the existence of the state of Israel and United Nations resolutions 242 and 338, and this decision is likely to make the task of the moderates in the PLO more difficult.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My right hon. Friend has made an important point very clearly and effectively. We took the opportunity during yesterday's debate to make entirely clear our view that Mr. Arafat should have been allowed to address the General Assembly, and that that was the legal obligation of the United States under the headquarters agreement. We should have liked to hear him confirm there the very point made by my right hon. Friend—that the PLO supports an international conference on the basis of Security Council resolutions 242 and 338 and rejects terrorism.
The additional point that is vexing Opposition Members is this. We want a positive response from the United States on this matter. We pressed the substance of the resolution in our own statement and we supported the statement that was made by the Twelve to achieve it, but we did not think that we were likely to bring about a change in the United States attitude by supporting a resolution couched in intemperate language. We have made our position absolutely clear. There is a mutuality of obligation in the United Nations. The host country owes an obligation to the Establishment, and the Establishment owes a duty to the United States. I invite the House to acknowledge that we have pressed this case and that we shall continue to do so as vigorously as is required.

Mr. Steel: Surely the Secretary of State accepts that intemperate action is worse in foreign affairs than intemperate language. That is what we have seen by the United States in its refusal of the visa. Those of us who have had contact with the PLO over the years have urged the recognition of United Nation resolutions such as No. 242. Now that that recognition is forthcoming, it is lamentable that the visa has been refused. The British ambassador should be given more robust instructions than simply to abstain from voting.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have made absolutely clear the extent to which we regret the refusal of the visa, and so did our spokesman in New York yesterday in concert with the representatives of the other member states. Mr. Arafat should have been allowed to address the General Assembly, but the question is how we can best move forward in the future. I am prepared to assure the House that the United Kingdom's credit with our friends in the Arab world and in the United States is substantial enough and strong enough for it to be understood when we say that Mr. Arafat should have been heard, and we say it in language that is more likely to produce a positive response from the United States.

Mr. Lawrence: Is it not patently obvious that if Mr. Arafat and the PLO were serious about peace with Israel they would explicitly recognise the existence of the state of Israel, rather than just hint at it, that they would explicitly renounce violence—which they do not even hint at—and that they would not explicitly demand that the capital of the Palestinian state should be Jerusalem?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. and learned Friend is right to remind the House of the familiar conditions for the debate to go forward, but it is also right to acknowledge, as we have, that the statements that have emerged from the Palestine National Council meeting in Algiers are important moves in a positive direction and should be acknowledged as such. It is for that reason that we left the United Nations in no doubt, and now leave the House in


no doubt, that we think that Mr. Arafat should have been heard. It would have been an opportunity for him to make clear to the United Nations the PLO's explicit acceptance of my hon. and learned Friend's points. We want progress to be made in that direction and we should like action to be taken by both sides. We think that yesterday the United Nations reached the right judgment on the substance but that the language used was not best calculated to produce the change of heart in the United States that we want. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) interrupts. We proposed a series of alternative wordings that we think would have been more likely to allow the United States to reach the right conclusion. However, the House should be in no doubt that the case to be made by Mr. Arafat on behalf of the PLO ought to have been heard, because the concessions and the movements that have been made in Algiers are important.

Mr. Kaufman: What a wriggling, snivelling response we have had from the Foreign Secretary. How can he offer any justification for the pusillanimous abstention by Britain yesterday in the Legal Committee when 129 nations voted in favour of a modest, sensible resolution which simply asked the United States to reconsider what it had done? Would it not have been a good idea to give Mr. Arafat the opportunity to state before the General Assembly what was implicit and clear in the Algiers declaration—that the PLO recognises resolutions 242 and 338—and also what Mr. Faisal Awaida of the PLO said explicitly in London yesterday—that the PLO is ready to recognise the state of Israel? Is it not an abuse by the United States of its position as host to the United Nations that it should decide on domestic grounds who should be allowed to address the General Assembly of the United Nations? If indeed a past association with terrorism is a disqualification from being allowed into the United States, how did Mr. Shamir—an acknowledged former terrorist—ever get in?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman must come back to the point that I have made repeatedly this afternoon. What the representative of Her Majesty's Government said in the United Nations yesterday is precisely as follows:
I wish to make clear that in the view of the British Government Mr. Yasser Arafat, chairman of the executive committee of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, should have been allowed to come to the United Nations headquarters in New York. This is the legal obligation of the United States. My delegation endorses the opinion given on this matter by the United Nations legal council"—[Hon. Members: But—]"but just as we believe that the United States should show respect for the United Nations, so we believe that the United Nations should show respect for the United States. This mutual respect should have been reflected in the language of the resolution.
If the House wants to get effective action by the United States, which is not just an important ally but a most important actor in the Arab-Israel dispute, it makes sense for us to set about the matter in a fashion likely to produce that result.

Caribbean

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last visited states in the Caribbean region.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Eggar): My right hon. and learned Friend was last in the Caribbean in January 1987, when he visited Barbados for discussions with the then Prime Minister and members of his Government. I will be attending the Miami conference later this week and also visiting Jamaica, Anguilla and Montserrat.

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: What progress, if any, has been made in co-ordinating efforts to combat the appalling problem of drug trafficking in the region? Will my hon. Friend make representations on that subject during his forthcoming visit?

Mr. Eggar: My hon. Friend is right. There is a significant problem both of domestic drug growing and of trafficking, the latter being from South America through to the United States and Europe. With the United States, we initiated a joint survey of the problem. We have made a number of recommendations to Caribbean Governments. They have been followed through with a meeting in Barbados. I shall have discussions with Prime Ministers and others in the next few days about increasing co-operation even further.
There has been one setback, in that it appears that hurricane Gilbert managed to destroy almost all agricultural crops in Jamaica except the ganja crop.

Mrs. Mahon: During his visit, will the Minister consider visiting the Atlantic city of Bluefields, which has been completely destroyed by hurricane Joe? The world service recently reported that there was a major ecological disaster there. Will the Minister consider giving Bluefields aid, through the agency of the garrison at Belize, on the same scale as that provided for Jamaica?

Mr. Eggar: As the hon. Lady is aware, the Government have made well over £250,000 available to Nicaragua to assist with emergency relief. A great deal of that money has gone to the Bluefields area.

Chile

Mr. Macdonald: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the steps he is taking to assist a smooth transition to democracy in Chile.

Mr. Eggar: Both we and our partners in the Twelve fully support the transition to democracy in Chile. We will continue to encourage an orderly and peaceful restoration of democracy in that country.

Mr. Macdonald: I welcome the Minister's expression of support—however subdued—for the plebiscite in Chile. He must be aware that Amnesty International has reported several trangressions of human rights in Chile since the plebiscite. That makes it clear that all Governments must give their full support to the progress of democracy in Chile. What practical steps is the Minister taking, independently of the EEC, to achieve such progress?

Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that we welcomed the result of the plebiscite in unequivocal terms, and we welcome the measures that have been taken to return to democracy in Chile. We welcome in particular the responsible attitude taken by the democratic


Opposition during the run-up to the plebiscite and subsequent to it. The hon. Gentleman referred to human rights in Chile. We have urged privately and publicly for the Chilean Government to respect human rights. I did so most recently when I met the Chilean Foreign Minister in Quito in August. Our ambassador in Chile does so as well and I welcome in particular the Chilean Government's decision to ratify important international agreements, which they did on 15 September.

Mr. Foulkes: Does the Minister accept that the excellent plebiscite result was just a first step towards democracy? Will he confirm that when he met Ricardo Lagos, the leader of the Partido por la Democracia yesterday, he was urged that the British Government should join other European Governments, particularly at the Rhodes summit, to support further the process of the restoration of democracy and to prepare actively for co-operation with the new democratic Government in Chile? Will the Minister answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) and say what practical steps Her Majesty's Government intend to take over the next 12 months to support the new democracy in Chile, because it is vitally important that Britain is seen as the friend of the new democracy in Chile and not as an ally of the old, discredited dictatorship?

Mr. Eggar: It must be up to the Chileans to decide how they wish to return to democracy. That was the message that Mr. Lagos gave to me yesterday and which other democratic opposition leaders have given. We shall continue, as we have in the past, to do everything that we can to assist the return to democracy in Chile, but the primary responsibility must continue to lie with the Chilean people.

Mr. Wilkinson: Is it not noteworthy that the plebiscite was conducted fairly and that the Chilean Government intend to implement in full the provisions of the 1980 constitution, leading to elections for the national assembly and the presidency in December this year and for the transfer of power in March next year? Is the situation in Chile not markedly different from that in Peru, where there is widespread guerrilla warfare and chaos, in Brazil and Argentina, where there is hyper-inflation, and in Columbia, where the drug barons rule?

Mr. Eggar: My hon. Friend is right. Every undertaking in the 1980 constitution has been carried out to the letter by the Chilean Government and it is right that the House should recognise that.

Palestine National Council

Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the Palestine National Council's recent declaration in Algiers.

Mr. Marlow: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been his response to the recent Palestine National Council declaration.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: We do not believe that the declaration of a Palestinian state helps to carry matters forward. But the other decisions taken by the Palestine

National Council represent a positive and potentially important step towards a peaceful settlement of the Arab-Israel conflict.

Mr. Nicholson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that there is gratitude and good will from the middle east for Her Majesty's Government's balanced and positive attitude on the question—unlike that of some others that I could mention—and will he pledge that the Government will continue to pursue this matter on its merits, irrespective of external threats and blackmail, and of internal political lobbying?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend accurately sums up the position of Her Majesty's Government. We certainly seek to maintain a balanced, energetic and effective approach. We shall continue to press the case for progress on the peace process at every possible opportunity.

Mr. Marlow: While supporting totally my right hon. and learned Friend in his answer to Qn 2, at this important time when results are important and rhetoric is not, may I ask whether my right hon. and learned Friend will help to bring about those results by seeking to encourage still further the courageous initiative by the moderate Palestinians in the face of extreme Israeli provocation by seeking out an early meeting with Palestinian representatives at the highest level?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am sure the House will wish to record the important conclusion of my hon. Friend on results and rhetoric—that is certainly our preference. He knows that we engage in regular dialogue at official levels with the PLO. It is important for the PLO to continue to clarify its position if further and wider contact is to be possible. That is one reason why we would have welcomed an opportunity for Mr. Arafat to be able to address the United Nations General Assembly.

Mr. Janner: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the purpose of our policy in the middle east must be to encourage the promotion of peace, and that, if there is to be peace, the involvement of both sides is required? Does he further agree that if Her Majesty's Government are regarded as being entirely on one side their prospects of being of assistance in the peace process are gravely reduced? Whatever Government may result from Israel's recent turbulent election, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that neither major party there is prepared to deal with the PLO unless and until it renounces terrorism now?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, progress in the central Arab-Israeli problem depends on the response from both sides. That is why unhelpful unilateral actions by either side do not carry the matter forward. That relates to a number of actions that have been taken unilaterally by the Israeli Government. If action is to be taken by both sides, I urge the Israeli Government to echo the view of the entire House and respond positively to the steps taken by the Palestine National Council. We now look to Israel to make a parallel commitment to the peace process to match the forward movement made by the PNC in Algiers.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Surely the Foreign Secretary cannot ignore the fact that the conditions for Britain moving forward in our relationship with the PLO were laid down by his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when she said


that the PLO would have to renounce terrorism and accept resolutions 242 and 338. The Palestinians have now done that and, we understand, have done so democratically, with the minority who lost the vote accepting it publicly and completely—with no abstentions. In an earlier reply the Foreign Secretary said that the Arab world well understands our position, but our position will not be well understood if we now start to move the goal posts. The Foreign Secretary must do something now to respond to the initiative taken by the Palestinians in Algiers.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The position is entirely clear. For a long time we and many other people have been pressing the PLO to forward movement on the points mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. We have secured an explicit rejection of terrorism—that is important. We have secured acceptance of resolutions 242 and 338 as the basis for an international conference—that is important. However, there is not yet an explicit recognition of Israel, nor is there yet a renunciation of violence in Israel and the occupied territories. We want to see those ambiguities cleared up if further progress is to be made. In response to the progress that has already been made, and which I have described as positive, we are entitled to look—and we do look—to the Government of Israel for a matching and positive response.

Mr. Cormack: If the representative of the PLO has continued difficulties in presenting his case to the United Nations, will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that there is a most admirable building across the river that would provide excellent headquarters for the General Assembly, if only for a temporary session?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The suggestion has not so far been made by anybody else, but it is certainly right that Mr. Arafat should have the opportunity to be heard. The suggestion has been canvassed of a General Assembly meeting perhaps in Geneva, and depending on the resolution there for discussion we shall determine our position. As I say, Mr. Arafat should be given the opportunity to be heard on behalf of the PLO, if only to resolve the remaining ambiguities in PLO policy.

Mr. Sillars: Am I right in saying that the Secretary of State said earlier that the dialogue will continue with the PLO at official level? Given the implications of the acceptance in the Algerian declaration, why does the Secretary of State not personally meet Yasser Arafat now?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The qualifications that are relevant in that have been clear for a long time. They include recognition of Israel's right to a secure existence and a renunciation of violence in Israel, in the occupied territories. As I have said, significant progress was made in the discussions in Algiers, but ambiguities remain, so the same considerations have to be taken into account.

Mr. Speaker: No. 6.

Mr. Faulds: Really. This is disgraceful. Two major questions.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is disgraceful behaviour.

Angola

Mr. Tredinnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the agreement reached in Geneva on a timetable for Cuban troops' withdrawal from Angola.

Mrs. Chalker: We have lent our full support to the United States-led negotiations. We warmly welcome the recent agreement on a timetable for Cuban troop withdrawal from Angola. We urge the parties to move forward to implementation of the United Nations plan for Namibian independence.

Mr. Tredinnick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this agreement and the reprieve of the Sharpeville Six show that talking forcefully to the South African Government is rather more effective than sanctions or boycotts? Could she tell the House the Government's view about the possibility of a pre-independence conference about Namibia?

Mrs. Chalker: We have always advocated that dialogue and negotiations will produce the best outcomes. The tenacious advocacy of Dr. Chester Crocker and his leadership of the quadripartite talks have brought us to this successful position in respect of the Angola agreement between South Africa, Angola and Cuba. We warmly welcome the news that the Sharpeville Six have been reprieved. Hon. Members will know that we have made repeated representations on behalf of the Six, including the Prime Minister's own appeal. On the question of the future of Namibia, it is right that we should proceed on the United Nations plan, which has been agreed by all, and which will be impartially monitored by the United Nations. There is nothing to be gained and much might be lost if we were now to reopen the principles of the Security Council resolution 435. We welcome the recent direct contacts between SWAPO and leading Namibians.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Hughes, on a point of order.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I could hardly hear the Minister's answer.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member wish to ask a question?

Mr. Hughes: Yes.
While I think we all welcome some progress in the discussions in southern Africa about Namibia, and while we welcome in addition to the Sharpeville Six reprieve the release of Harry Gwala and Zephia Mothopeng, may I ask the Minister of State whether she realises that South Africa is already prevaricating on the agreement that it purports to have reached? It is demanding that it should be part of the monitoring operation on Cuban withdrawal. It is suggesting a much later timetable and introducing fresh discussions by saying that UNITA must by involved in some discussions with the Angolan Government before Namibia is free. That has nothing to do with resolution 435 on Namibia. Will the Minister ensure that the utmost pressure, including sanctions, is maintained until South Africa can show that it can keep its word?

Mrs. Chalker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman's head is all right following the earlier incident.
On the more serious matter, we believe that the agreement will pave the way for an early implementation


of the UN plan for Namibian independence. We also believe that the South Africans will act in good faith, but we shall judge them by their deeds. They have compelling reasons—economic, military and political—to sign the settlement that they have reached, and I believe that the terms will be acceptable. As to the creation of internal peace in Angola, there cannot be a lasting peace unless people come together. I do not believe that it is for Britain or other outside countries to prescribe how that internal peace should be brought about. I know that many African Heads of Government are seeking to help, and we sincerely hope that they will be successful in bringing about peace in Angola between all the parties.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is it not surprising that, in these welcome results from the Geneva talks, no mention was made of Jonas Savimbi and UNITA, which is an important force in Angola? Will my right hon. Friend accept that, unless there is reconciliation between UNITA and the MPLA, there will be no lasting peace and stability in Southern Africa? If reconciliation can be achieved in that country, elections in Namibia can be free and fair, and following elections there, further progress and accommodation can be achieved in the Republic of South Africa.

Mrs. Chalker: Of course I believe that all parties must come together, and as one African leader said to me earlier this month, it would be difficult to negotiate with a body without a head. Therefore, it seems sensible that the process of creating international peace will require all parties to come together.

Mr. Anderson: Naturally, like the Minister, we warmly welcome the signs of movement in southern Africa, but should not the South African moves be seen in the context of the South Africans' economic difficulties? Is not their current diplomatic offensive essentially to buy time and divert opinion from their internal problems? Therefore, will the right hon. Lady assure the House that the Foreign Office will try to restrain the Prime Minister from visiting South Africa and giving a royal blessing on that country until there are real signs of movement on apartheid?

Mrs. Chalker: We are absolutely at one in wishing to see the agreements over Angola and Namibia concluded successfully and peacefully, and the progression towards achieving internal peace in Angola. As I said to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), there are compelling reasons, which should not be underestimated because they happen to be economic and political. We must judge the South African Government by their deeds. As to the speculation about the travels of my right hon. Friend, they remain that—just speculation.

Council of Ministers

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will next attend a meeting of the European Community Council of Ministers; and what subjects he expects to discuss.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The next Foreign Affairs Council will be held on 19 and 20 December. Subjects currently on the agenda are GATT, New Zealand butter and sheepmeat, hormones, Community and EFTA relations and steel tariffs.

Mrs. Ewing: Given that today is St. Andrew's day, if not every Andrew's day, can the Foreign Secretary tell us on how many occasions he has been accompanied to the Council of Ministers by the Secretary of State for Scotland?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have not had the pleasure of that experience. At meetings of the Council, representatives of the United Kingdom speak for the United Kingdom as a whole and the policies of Her Majesty's Government make sure that the interests of every part of the kingdom are taken into account.

Mr. Soames: In the course of those busy meetings, will my right hon. and learned Friend see whether he can raise with our partners in the EEC the pressing difficulties relating to European air traffic control? Is he aware of the tremendous inconvenience to which enormous numbers of people were put last summer? Will he do his best to try to put the matter at the top of the agenda?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As my hon. Friend and I share the privilege of being neighbours of Gatwick airport, I share his concern about the point that he has raised. There was an effective meeting of Euro control last week at which those issues were advanced. We shall continue to press the case that he has put forward.

Rev. Martin Smyth: When the Foreign Secretary speaks to his fellow Ministers, will he underline the perhaps naive view of people in Northern Ireland that Governments are there to protect law-abiding people and to punish evildoers? Will he therefore support his right hon. Friend's comment that high-sounding declarations are not sufficient when dealing with terrorists, unless they are backed by deeds?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall certainly emphasise the point made by the hon. Gentleman. It is of the utmost importance that, when correct legal procedures are followed, extradition requests are prepared in consultation with another Government and no grounds are given for believing that they are incomplete or insufficient, the necessary will should be forthcoming to ensure that people who should be brought to trial do face trial.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take the opportunity on St. Andrew's day, which also happens to be the 114th anniversary of the birth of Winston Churchill, to remind the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) that, if her dream of secession of North Britain from Great Britain is achieved, she will also have achieved the secession of North Britain from Europe and that it will require to get over the veto of Great Britain to get back in there?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: No one could put the point as effectively as my hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Alton: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that there is concern among many hon. Members about the failure to extradite Mr. Ryan? When he raises the matter with the Belgian and Irish Governments, will he also bear in mind that this does at least present us now with the opportunity to press for European Community-wide legislation to combat terrorism? Does he agree that, in accord with the concept of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, it would be far


better to underpin our joint determination to fight terrorism if that legislation were jointly enacted by the House and the Dail?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I can understand the force of the general case made by the hon. Gentleman, but no part of the law has so far been more carefully preserved for national enactment and consideration than the criminal codes. There are wide variations between the countries of the Community in respect of criminal law, so it is all the more important for us to secure effective, sustained and workable co-operation in arrangements for extradition and matters of that kind. It is important that both partners to the Anglo-Irish Agreement should recognise that we have a joint, sustained and important interest in achieving effective action in the courts against terrorism.

Sir John Stokes: Will my right hon. and learned Friend ask the Council of Ministers if it could forcefully instruct the Commission against interfering in petty and stupid details? Is he aware, for instance, that English sterling silver, which is unequalled throughout the world, has recently had its hallmark stopped by some faceless EEC bureaucrat and an EEC number substituted?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is our constant purpose to diminish the number of regulations applying throughout Europe. It is for that reason that we recognise the case, in certain examples, for having a single common European standard rather than 12 diverse different ones. I shall consider the point raised by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Mullin: Is not the main obstacle in persuading other European Governments to help us with effective extradition the widespread belief' that an Irish person charged with a terrorist offence cannot hope to receive a fair trial in this country? Is that not boosted by the conviction of the six innocent people for the Birmingham pub bombing and the 11 innocent people held in connection with the Guildford and Woolwich pub bombings? If we wish to occupy the moral high ground and to work out effective extradition procedures, would it not be best to face the fact that, in those cases, we have made a terrible mistake?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: It cannot be stated too clearly and too often that all sides and all nations that are concerned with the intensely difficult struggle against well-organised terrorism have an equally important interest in the effectiveness of action to bring terrorists to trial, and in the justice of the trial proceedings when they take place. There is no doubt about that. One of the purposes of the exchanges that we have throughout Europe and through the Anglo-Irish Agreement is to promote progress on both those fronts. The patterns for scrutiny of decisions of the courts in this country, subject as they are, in due course, to the European Commission on Human Rights, will stand comparison with those anywhere in the world. If we are seeking to enhance confidence in the British system of justice, the hon. Gentleman should think twice before advancing some of the allegations that he has put forward this afternoon.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that in matters concerning the European Community, as in other matters of foreign policy, he enjoys a degree of admiration and support that extends well beyond Conservative Benches? Does he agree that

there is no need to set up another body to give my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister the sort of foreign policy advice that Sir Horace Wilson gave to Neville Chamberlain?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I do not think that any such body is in contemplation.

Ms. Short: The Foreign Secretary will know that there has been speculation that the EEC might take an initiative to back a two-stage solution in the middle east. What is the Government's view about that? There is a real chance now of peace between the Palestinians and Israel, but his remarks earlier this afternoon were incredibly biased. The degree of terror that Israel is using in the Lebanon, the West Bank and Gaza should be denounced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, just as he has denounced the acts in which Palestinian individuals have engaged. There is a chance for peace. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take a lead? Will Europe take a lead?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Lady should recall that last week in Brussels, at the end of a long discussion on the subject by the Foreign Ministers of the Community, not only yesterday in New York, we all recorded our unanimous view that what has happened in Algiers represents a positive step forward, to which there should be an Israeli response. We recorded our continuing concern, which we have expressed many times, at the implications of the violence that is committed by the Israeli Government and Israeli forces in the occupied territories. We deplore violence of whatever sort that is committed by either side. We look for a positive response from both sides to get a conference working through which it will be possible to arrive at a solution.

United States of America

Mr. Rowe: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last visited the United States of America; and what matters were discussed.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I last visited the United States to attend the United Nations General Assembly in September. A range of issues were discussed with those I saw there.

Mr. Rowe: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is enormously important, at the start of a new presidency, that relations between western Europe and the United States should be as warm as possible? If it is true that there is a 1:3 imbalance between the conventional forces of the Warsaw pact and those of NATO, should not the contributions of the Americans to NATO be recognised? Should not that prove something of a spur to western European countries to make greater contributions themselves?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is entirely right to say that, in the context of our continued maintenance of the Atlantic Alliance for our effective defence, burden-sharing is the most important item on the agenda. I have no doubt that the new President of the United States will address himself to the American aspect of that. It is important that the European partners should be ready to play their full part to sustain the strength of the Alliance.

Mr. Grocott: Does the Foreign Secretary share my relief at the fact that the deeply embarrassing client relationship between the Prime Minister and President Reagan is coming to an end? Does he share my hope that under the new President—I hope that he will use his influence to ensure this—we shall start again to pursue an independent foreign policy of our own and cease to be a satellite state of the United States?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman lives in a land of illusion. One of the most important features of British foreign policy in the past decade has been the growing influence of Her Majesty's Government under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the United States as well as in the European Community. I hope very much that that effective relationship will continue with the new President.

Persian Gulf

Mr. Arbuthnot: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the prospects for peace in the Persian Gulf area.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. William Waldegrave): We welcome the continuation of the ceasefire and of talks between Iran and Iraq under the auspices of the United Nations Secretary-General, who enjoys our full support. Our objective remains a just and comprehensive settlement through full implementation of Security Council resolution 598.

Mr. Arbuthnot: Does my hon. Friend agree that in spite of the major difficulties that we have had with both the countries involved it is important that Britain should try to maintain a balanced relationship with Iraq and Iran?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. Neither country conducts its affairs in ways that would meet with the approval of this House, but both are important regional powers and we cannot ignore their existence or their importance in their regions.

Mr. Cohen: Will the Minister investigate the claim that Iran has started a new wave of killings of political prisoners in Kerman prison and others? It is reported that 50 leading members of the Tudeh party and a total of 5,000 political prisoners have been killed recently. Will he investigate that matter urgently?

Mr. Waldegrave: I have seen the reports to which the hon. Gentleman refers. There are serious human rights problems in Iran still. We have our own problems as Mr. Cooper and Mr. Nichola are prisoners there who should be released or brought to trial. They should be released.

South Africa

Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to visit South Africa.

Mrs. Chalker: My right hon. and learned Friend has no present plans to do so.

Mr. Bellingham: When the Minister visits South Africa, she will have a chance to enter our embassy in either Cape Town or Pretoria. When she visits it, she will be able to come and go in peace, in stark contrast to South Africa

House, where diplomats and visitors are verbally abused, jostled and harassed by hooligans with loudhailers. Surely it is time to remove the picket. Will she have urgent discussions with the Home Secretary about that?

Mrs. Chalker: I regret all demonstrations that disrupt law and order on our streets. However, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. The issue of demonstrators outside embassies is a matter for the Metropolitan police and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I will bring my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Flannery: When the Minister goes to South Africa again, will she raise the issue of the number of black people who are jostled and harassed in South Africa by the Botha Government and by the incoming Tory Government in South Africa? Will she mention the number of people still being hanged every morning in South Africa? Will she raise all the issues which a whole number of people on the Government Benches who travel to South Africa, paid for by the South African Government, never raise at all and clearly agree with?

Mrs. Chalker: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows me well enough to realise that I will take every opportunity provided to me to raise those cases which we believe, and have consistently believed, should be raised with the South African Government. In fact, I did that during a private weekend visit when I spent most of that weekend in the three townships of Soweto, Mamelodi and Alexandra, when I saw the conditions for myself. I also saw the help that the British Government are giving to black people in South Africa in health, education, housing and training. Where cases involve internal matters in South Africa, we can raise those with Ministers, but we cannot direct them in what to do. The people have elected that Government, even though it is a minority white Government.

Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe

Mr. Chapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress of, and the present position on, the Vienna review conference on security and co-operation in Europe.

Mr. Waldegrave: Provisional agreement has been reached on a large number of issues at the Vienna CSCE meeting, including useful new commitments in human rights. We hope that it can be concluded soon, but we continue to believe that the right result is more important than an early result.

Mr. Chapman: In welcoming the further progress that has been made, may I ask my hon. Friend to confirm that there are still some basic human rights issues outstanding and that until the Warsaw pact countries unambiguously accept some of those basic human rights, not least the freedoms of religion, travel and visiting, no meaningful purpose can be served by starting the conventional stability talks? Does he agree that there is an opportunity to make that point precisely within the next fortnight during the very welcome visit by President Gorbachev to this country?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is quite right. My right hon. Friend will be making those points when President Gorbachev visits Britain. There has been


progress in the Soviet Union, but there is still much more to be made. As my hon. Friend knows, in other Warsaw pact countries, such as Romania, no progress is being made—as many hon. Members on both sides of the House have written to me to emphasise—and there have been important steps backwards in human rights.

Mr. Lamond: Are the Government maintaining their determination not to agree to a third meeting of the committee on human relations, which is proposed to be held in Moscow? Are we maintaining resistance to that on the grounds that, although in eastern Europe they are extending human rights quite a lot, and certainly will have done so by 1991, we in Britain are moving in the opposite direction?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is free to experiment in Romania if he considers that is preferable. We have the greatest scepticism about the Moscow human rights conference. Many groups of people concerned with human rights on both sides of the Iron Curtain have written to us to urge caution. On the other hand, as Mr. Sakharov said, if it is accompanied by the right conditions it might well be an opportunity for further progress. We shall look at the conditions on offer, and we shall make up our minds then. Until the last minute before that conference takes place, if things go backwards we shall reserve the right to withdraw from it.

Scottish Transport Group

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the future of the Scottish Transport Group.
In my statements to the House on 27 January and 24 May, I said that I had decided to privatise the Scottish Bus Group and to do so in about 10 units. I also said that I would give further careful consideration to the implications for the future of Caledonian MacBrayne. As the House will know, it was announced in the Queen's Speech that legislation to privatise the Scottish Bus Group and make arrangements for the future of Caledonian MacBrayne would be introduced this Session. The Transport (Scotland) Bill is being laid before the House today.
I will deal first with Caledonian MacBrayne, which provides a wide range of shipping services on the west coast of Scotland. Many of these services provide a lifeline to the islands they serve. It is essential that these services should be maintained together with the greatly improved standards which we have built up since we came to office, with new ships and new piers. With this background very much in mind, we have looked carefully at a range of options in considering the future of Caledonian MacBrayne. Certain quite distinctive types of service are provided and different solutions might well be appropriate in the interests of both customers and taxpayers.
First, there are the services provided within the relatively sheltered waters of the Clyde; secondly, the services provided by major ships on the more difficult waters of the west coast; and thirdly, the short crossings to individual islands provided by smaller vessels. In the upper Clyde there is a clear anomaly in the case of the Gourock-Dunoon route, where Caledonian MacBrayne is running a subsidised service on a similar route to a commercial operation provided by Western Ferries. This route should be able to operate satisfactorily on the basis of private funding, as could CalMac's Wemyss Bay-Rothesay route which is provided by the same group of vessels. However, we fully recognise that for the remaining services operated by Caledonian MacBrayne, significant subsidies will for the most part continue to be needed in order to maintain the present level of service. Our examination of the present structure and methods of operation of CalMac, however, has led me to conclude that there is considerable scope for getting better value for the money which we—and the passengers—spend on these services.
In the light of the early dissolution of the Scottish Transport Group, of our examination of the options, and taking account of the many views expressed to us, I have decided that the best arrangement for Caledonian MacBrayne is that it should become a company owned in the first instance by the Secretary of State. A new board for the company will be appointed and will contain some people with commercial expertise, including some with first-hand knowledge of the islands served and their needs. I believe it is right for the headquarters of the new company to be nearer the centre of the area which it serves, and consider that Oban would be likely to prove the most suitable place from which to operate.
I will ask the new board to explore the possibility of transferring to the private sector the Gourock-Dunoon and Wemyss Bay-Rothesay routes. For the remaining services, I will ask it to examine existing practices carefully in order to find more efficient and cost-effective ways of delivering the present standard of service. No options for the longer term will be excluded, subject to the overriding proviso that they must ensure at least the present quality of service to the islands.
As far as the Scottish Bus Group is concerned, I have, with my financial advisers, Quayle Munro, given further consideration to the pattern of privatisation. I have decided that the Scottish Bus Group should be offered for sale as 11 units. Nine of those units are existing subsidiaries of the Scottish Bus Group. They are the seven existing geographical operating subsidiaries—Lowland, Eastern, Strathtay, Highland, Fife, Northern and Midland, the coaching firm Scottish Citylink, and the engineering subsidiary, SBG Engineering.
The other two units for privatisation will be created by the combination of two pairs of existing geographical subsidiaries, Western and Clydeside, which will be privatised as one unit, as will Central and Kelvin. That pattern of privatisation is designed to create viable companies and the basis for sustained and balanced competition within the Scottish bus market to the benefit of bus travellers. The combination of subsidiaries round Glasgow takes account of the competitive situation in that city.
I am keen that this privatisation should increase employee participation. I know that there is already considerable interest among employees in taking part in the privatisation. I welcome that. It will be encouraged by the provision of financial assistance to management-employee teams wanting to bid for their companies and offering the prospect of locally based management with real employee participation.
The arrangements that I am announcing today for both CalMac and the Scottish Bus Group will provide the basis for maintaining and improving services to the Scottish public, for creating vigorous new Scottish companies, with which local communities will identify, and for getting better value for money where public subsidy will still be required.

Mr. Donald Dewar: The statement on Caledonian MacBrayne represents a major retreat by the Secretary of State and a tacit recognition by even this prejudiced Government that privatisation is not a universal remedy, and certainly not the best way to provide essential public services. The decision is a tribute to the coherent case argued by the communities that depend on those services and by my hon. Friends who have taken a particular interest in the matter.
I welcome the retreat but, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman will recognise, many questions remain unanswered. We have been told that the bulk of Caledonian MacBrayne's operations will be transferred, in the first instance, to a company owned by the Secretary of State. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman end the uncertainty and recognise the logic of his decision by ruling out the possibility of further asset stripping? Will he give an assurance that the board of the new company will be genuinely representative of the areas it serves and will not be burdened with a remit to sell out as and when possible?
The right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement struggled painfully to reconcile reality with his ideology. He knows that he cannot deliver what he wanted, so we are left with interference to very little purpose. Is he satisfied that the arrangements for Caledonian MacBrayne will allow the present level of European assistance to continue?
The Secretary of State referred to the new board exploring the possibility of the transfer of the Gourock-Dunoon and Wemyss Bay-Rothesay service. Does that mean that the company, having examined the options, can refuse? Will the board have the independence of action that will allow such a refusal?
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that there is no need to fragment Caledonian MacBrayne services in that way? Does he recall the last time that the Government tried to hand the Gourock-Dunoon route to the private sector in the form of Western Ferries? He should, because he was the Minister in charge of that disaster. In the light of that experience, will he guarantee that public opinion will be consulted on this occasion?
Many interests will regret that the Scottish Bus Group is to be split in the way described. However, I welcome the emphasis on employee participation. I hope that the financial support to which the Minister referred will be realistic. Does he recall that, of the 72 component companies of the National Bus Group in England, only two went to employee participation buy-outs? That underlines the need for financial help to be more than cosmetic—more than mere window dressing—if it is to be a success.
What protection will there be against predators from south of the border or, indeed, of the home-grown variety, of which Stagecoach is the most feared? Our interests will be to ensure that the conditions of service and the pensions of employees are secured and that the level of service for the travelling public is protected, especially in rural areas and during off-peak hours. The whole exercise is a political manoeuvre which has no public support. The Secretary of State should recognise that the realities that forced the Caledonian MacBrayne retreat apply, too, to the Scottish Bus Group as a whole. A further retreat would be very much in the public interest.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman never ceases to entertain the House. In response to my comments on Caledonian MacBrayne, he began by describing the statement as a triumph for the Opposition—and then proceeded to criticise every detail in it. He must make up his mind how he interprets the statement.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the simple fact is that, when I spoke about Caledonian MacBrayne some months ago, I made it clear that the Government had no preconception as to whether the privatisation of Caledonian MacBrayne would be a realistic option. I challenge the hon. Gentleman or any of his hon. Friends to quote any statement, phrase or suggestion to the contrary. What I said was that the Government's overriding priority since 1979 has been to maintain—indeed improve—the quality of service to the islands. We have allowed the resources needed to improve that service to be provided. Where there are services, such as Gourock-Dunoon and Wemyss Bay-Rothesay, where a subsidy is not needed, then it is inappropriate for subsidy to continue.
The hon. Gentleman asked me whether the Caledonian MacBrayne company, having investigated the matter,

would be free to conclude that it did not wish to privatise those routes. It would be a curious line of argument that said that it would be appropriate to continue with one route being subsidised by the taxpayer in order to compete with another company which requires no subsidy and can make a profit on that basis. That is the basis upon which these proposals are put forward.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether European assistance will continue to be available to Caledonian MacBrayne. I understand that there is no reason why it should not be.
In reply to the hon. Gentleman's comments about the Scottish Bus Group, I welcome his rather late-in-the-day endorsement of employee buy-outs of public sector companies. It is not an issue with which he has been identified in the past. I was especially interested when he concluded his sterling comments by saying that the whole issue of the privatisation of bus services was "a political manoeuvre with no public support". If the hon. Gentleman believes that, will he explain why Grampian regional council—with the support of the Labour group on that council—is at present proposing to the Scottish Office that it should be allowed to privatise its bus service? I am informed that that has the support of all political parties on Grampian regional council.
Why is it that the Labour party in the Grampian region believes that the privatisation of its bus service is in the public interest, but the Labour party in the House believes that the privatisation of the Scottish Bus Group is somehow a completely different matter? I advise the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends to visit their Labour colleagues on Grampian regional council. They may not come away any wiser, but they will come away better informed.

Mr. Allan Stewart: I join my right hon. and learned Friend in congratulating the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) on at least a small step towards Damascus. I welcome, too, what he has said about the assistance to be offered to employee management buy-outs. Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm the details of the assistance that may be available?
I shall ask my right hon. and learned Friend a more detailed question about the proposals for Western and Clydeside. My right hon. and learned Friend will know that I have made previous representations on behalf of a number of people in the industry, who considered that it would be better for those two companies to be privatised separately. Will he assure the House that those representations were taken seriously? Does he agree that it is important that the privatised companies should be able to compete fairly and effectively with Strathclyde Buses? Does he agree that the most effective way of ensuring that would be to privatise Strathclyde Buses?

Mr. Rifkind: I hope that Strathclyde regional council will follow the good precedent set by Grampian regional council, and do what is in the public interest.
We gave serious consideration to the flotation of Clydeside as an individual company, but the advice that we received suggested that the best prospect for the economic viability of Clydeside would be to combine it with Western. That is something that appeared to be in the interests both of those who work in Clydeside and those who use the bus services in that locality.
I am glad of my hon. Friend's welcome for employee participation. We shall be happy not only to give advice and assistance to those employees or those in management wishing to acquire their company, but, in line with similar previous privatisations, we hope that there will be some preference for a management or employee buy-out when this matter is finally dealt with after the passage of the necessary legislation.

Mrs. Ray Michie: It is appropriate that, on St. Andrew's day, I am able to welcome most of the Secretary of State's statement on Caledonian MacBrayne.
The fact that the Government have listened to representations made, have seen the light and have decided to back off on the privatisations is welcome. Will the Secretary of State also accept my thanks for arranging, at short notice, for his colleague the Minister of State to meet a delegation of islanders to hear their views. I am delighted that he was prepared to listen.
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman also accept that I fully endorse his idea that the management and headquarters should be moved to Oban?

Mr. George Foulkes: Why did the hon. Lady not think of that?

Mrs. Michie: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I suggested it several times. I am delighted that the Secretary of State agrees that the headquarters should be moved to the centre of its operations.
Will the Secretary of State guarantee that, if anything is done in the future about Caledonian MacBrayne, any proposals will be referred first to the House? We must have primary legislation. [Interruption.] I just want to ensure that the Secretary of State will guarantee the future of Caledonian MacBrayne.
As for the Dunoon and Rothesay routes, will the Secretary of State promise that the board will listen carefully to the representations of the local people, remembering the anger and frustration expressed the last time the Government tried to interfere?
Briefly, if the Scottish Bus Group is to be privatised, we are glad that the Government are considering a staff-management buy-out. I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to guarantee the service—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Briefly, please.

Mrs. Michie: —the service in the rural areas.

Mr. Rifkind: I am grateful for the hon. Lady's welcome for the statement. It is important that, just as we often want the centre of corporate activities moved to the north of England, Scotland or Wales, so too, within Scotland, it is desirable, where appropriate, for companies' headquarters to be moved to the communities they serve. Hence the decision to move the headquarters to Oban.
We shall encourage a management and employee buy-out of the Scottish Bus Group, but we cannot guarantee that that will be the end result, because that will depend on the proposals eventually put before us for the flotation of the individual companies.
There is an anomaly that needs to be resolved regarding Gourock-Dunoon. It should be unnecessary to use taxpayers' money to subsidise a service to compete with

another service that does not require a subsidy. Therefore, it would be proper and sensible to explore a way in which we can continue to ensure a proper service for those who use the route without the unnecessary subsidies of recent years.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: To cure the dementia of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), after he has spoken to the Socialist members of the Grampian region council perhaps he should, on his way south, call on those who run Strathtay Buses. Some 60 per cent. of that work force, to demonstrate that there is no public demand or interest, are presently putting £7,500 a week into a bank account to fund a management and employee buy-out. Will he ensure that their enthusiasm not only for running a successful bus group but for ridding themselves of the shackles of Socialism and union domination for ever is rewarded?

Mr. Rifkind: Not only do the employees of the Strathtay company think that way, but bus drivers in Bannockburn—that well-known centre of Scottish Conservatism—have appealed to the Government to allow employee participation in the acquisition of companies. In a survey of Scottish Bus Group employees in April, no fewer than 72 per cent. stated that, given the opportunity to invest in the company for which they work, they would like to do so. That is a splendid situation and one that flies in the face of Opposition attempts to deny them that opportunity.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: The so-called desirable shifting of Caledonian MacBrayne's headquarters may not be considered so desirable by those of my constituents working in Gourock. The Secretary of State may laugh at this moment, but it is a deeply worrying concept for many of those constituents and I should like him to show some seriousness. What is to happen to those people? Will some of them be made redundant? If the headquarters moves to Oban, will employees receive financial assistance towards the cost of transferring to Oban or some such place?
Given that the company will be owned by the Secretary of State, can we safely assume that any replacement orders for vessels will be placed with Scottish yards?

Mr. Rifkind: I have said that Oban seems to be the likely and sensible place for Caledonian MacBrayne's headquarters, and that seemed to have the general approval of the House as a whole. I have no doubt that the company will be responsive in a sensible and sensitive way to the questions that the hon. Gentleman has legitimately raised about the interests of those currently working for the company. I certainly hope that arrangements will be made to meet his points.
As to his final question, whether the company is formally owned by the Secretary of State or is part of the Scottish Transport Group, as it has been for the past few years, will not in itself influence the decision on where contracts for the construction of new ships will be awarded. Those matters will continue to be determined on the same basis as in the past.

Mr. Ernie Ross: As to real employee participation on the privatisation of the Scottish Bus Group, the Secretary of State must know that attempts by his opposite number in England were a singular failure and that employee participation did not come into existence


when privatisation took place there. The only way of achieving it in Scotland will be by imposing such financial conditions as will allow employee participation.
The hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) mentioned that Strathtay is well advanced in the matter of employee participation proposals. He must also know that a whole host of predators made a very fast buck from English privatisation and have already clearly stated that they will come into the Scottish market. How does the Secretary of State intend ensuring that there will be genuine employee participation by Scottish employees of the Scottish Bus Group?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that experience south of the border was that, while there was great success with management buy-outs of individual companies, the number in which employees were fully involved was far fewer. We hope to see a different pattern, with a much larger proportion of employee as well as management interest in the acquisition of Scottish companies. I cannot predict the outcome today, because a guarantee cannot be given to any one potential purchaser that they will be bound to succeed irrespective of the price offered. The companies are public assets, and Opposition Members would be the first to complain if they were disposed of for less than their true value. We must be sure that the ultimate purchasers of the bus companies pay a price commensurate with the value of the assets.
That having been said, of course we wish to give preference—as I have said—to management and employee proposals. The precise way in which that will operate has still to be concluded, but it is certainly our objective, and one with which I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would concur.

Mr. Bill Walker: This has been a memorable St. Andrew's day. Scottish Members have been entertained to lunch by a Scottish brewery, and my right hon. and learned Friend has made a welcome statement.
Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, because it is our intention to ensure maximum employee participation and hence to encourage ownership in Scotland, in the event of unsatisfactory proposals that cannot be reconciled, Scottish companies with employee share participation schemes will also be considered as possible owners of the new independent operations?

Mr. Rifkind: No one wishing to bid for these companies will be prohibited from doing so. We have said that we hope for successful bids from companies with management and employee schemes, and that we hope to be able to give them preference in considering applications. We cannot, however, give any guarantee to that effect, because we must be sure that we can account for the disposal of public assets in a way acceptable to the normal standards of the House.

Mr. Alexander Eadie: The House will recall that the right hon. and learned Gentleman refrained from answering the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) about preserving the public interest in rural areas. Will he tell us what proposals he will put to the House for ensuring that those in rural areas will not suffer as a consequence of

privatisation? Or will they be left out of the Government's considerations, as usually happens when they decide to privatise?

Mr. Rifkind: As I told the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), the Labour party in Aberdeen does not seem to believe that privatisation will damage the interests of consumers. Many private sector bus companies operate very successfully in rural areas. The idea that a bus company will stop serving its rural populaces simply because it moves from the state to the private sector does not relate to the experience of the public as a whole.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a United Kingdom Parliament.

Mr. Bennett: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I could point out to Opposition Members that I am the secretary of the Back Bench Conservative transport committee.
When considering the privatisation of the Scottish Bus Group, will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind the comments of Opposition Members on privatisation of the National Bus Company some years ago, and the success of deregulation of bus services in Scotland, which has provided more independent operators there since 1986? When Opposition Members talk about predators coming to take over Scottish bus companies, should they not bear in mind the fact that the most successful takeovers of bus companies in this country have been by the Stagecoach group of Perth, which has taken over many companies in the south of England?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is quite correct to say that Opposition Members apply double standards. They seem to believe that it is right in principle for Scottish companies to be able to expand south of the border, but we hear squeals of righteous indignation whenever the reverse applies.
As Opposition Members realise, we are part of a united kingdom and a single economy. Attempts to produce barriers of the kind that one or two of the more emotion al of them seem occasionally to suggest would be against the interests of the people of Scotland as a whole.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mrs. Ewing.

Mr. Harry Ewing: When the Secretary of State mentioned the possibility—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Carry on.

Mr. Ewing: Did I mistake what you said, Mr. Speaker? I thought you said, "Mr. Ewing." I should have known, with my record of being called, that that was a mistake.
When the Secretary of State refers to moving the headquarters of any organisation to the centre of activity, he ought to tell the House where it is now proposed to move the headquarters of the Scottish Conservative party. I am advised by the husband of a director of Grampian regional transport that, although the Grampian regional council is bitterly opposed to privatisation, it has entered into negotiations with its employees. Could I squeeze from the Secretary of State an absolute guarantee that he will not interfere in the negotiations? If Grampian regional council considers that it has no option, because of the Government's dogmatic approach, but to go ahead with


privatisation, I hope that the Secretary of State will not sell the company to a private company instead of to the employees. Finally, could the Secretary of State tell me when he last travelled on a bus?

Mr. Rifkind: I understand the hon. Gentleman's embarrassment about the position of his party in the Grampian area. Grampian regional council is not legally obliged to privatise—

Mr. Ewing: Not yet.

Mr. Rifkind: The fact is that Grampian regional council, with the support of all political parties, made proposals to privatise its bus company. In doing so, it has responded to the clear wishes of the management and employees of that company. If the hon. Gentleman does not like it, he should at least not misrepresent what is happening.
If a local authority wishes to privatise its public transport company, the statutory position is that it has to apply to the Scottish Office—

Mr. Ewing: No.

Mr. Rifkind: That is what Parliament requires and has insisted upon. We must ensure, as with the disposal of any public asset, that that is done in an appropriate way. If Grampian regional council wishes to privatise its bus company, I have no power to insist that it should sell it to other than those that it chooses. However, I can ensure that the terms under which it seeks to privatise the company are consistent with proper financial responsibility.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I realise that it is St. Andrew's day, not necessarily St. Harry's day. I agree with the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing), on the basis of my conversations with representatives of Grampian region, that a pragmatic decision has been taken and that Grampian is attempting to safeguard the livelihoods of those who are employed in the bus group.
What do the Government mean by "financial assistance"? Has the Secretary of State written a clear sum for next year into his budget? If he has, it would show how willing the Government are to support initiatives that will guarantee jobs for those employees. Is the Secretary of State able to assure me that the road equivalent tariff has not been ruled out for ever for the islands and that it will continue to be considered as a vital element in providing effective transport for the island communities?

Mr. Rifkind: I hope that the Grampian region's pragmatism is infectious and that Strathclyde, Lothian and Tayside will reach similarly pragmatic conclusions. The employees in the bus companies of those regions also seek a similar initiative from the local authorities. I assure the hon. Lady that resources will be provided for those who wish to contemplate employee or management buy-outs.

Mrs. Ewing: How much?

Mr. Rifkind: We shall discuss with those who put forward proposals what their requirements are in order to ensure that they have proper access to advice and

assistance. If the hon. Lady consulted Mr. Donald Stewart, who was the Member of Parliament for the Western Isles, he would no doubt tell her what he told me about the road equivalent tariff: that he fully appreciated that it might be undesirable for the islands. It might lead to a reduction in fares on some routes but it would lead to an increase in fares on others. I assume that that is not a policy that the hon. Lady is encouraging me to adopt.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Many hon. Members on this side of the House very much regret the thrust of this privatisation measure and the destruction of a co-ordinating mechanism in Scotland. It will harm the interests of the rural communities and tourism. I do not welcome the Secretary of State's decision on Caledonian MacBrayne; he is confusing ships and routes, particularly in relation to the Clyde ferry service. What guarantee can he provide about safety of operations? What guarantee is there that ships of the proper design will be ordered? The real fear is that privatisation will mean that the part which remains in the public domain will be run down, to the detriment of the people who live in the Western Isles and in the other island communities.

Mr. Rifkind: The rules governing safety apply with equal force, irrespective of whether a vessel is in the private or the public sector. Island communities in other parts of Scotland are well served by the private sector. One thinks of P and 0 in Orkney and Shetland and of many other island communities where bulk carriers to those islands are provided by the private sector. The hon. Gentleman cannot sensibly reach the conclusion that there is a need for a state-owned company.
However, I acknowledge that, such is the nature of the economy of the Hebridean islands and the size of the population, it will continue to be necessary in the foreseeable future for a significant level of taxpayers' funds to be used to ensure that the islanders have a service, which for them is a lifeline of contact with the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Calum Macdonald: The Secretary of State used snide and mean words about considerable scope for increased value for money and for increased cost-efficiency, but did not praise the savings that have already been achieved by Caledonian MacBrayne. The Secretary of State is having to eat humble pie, but he ought to praise the work of the crews, the employees and the management of Caledonian MacBrayne for the services that they have provided. The Secretary of State's words were based on a half-baked report by the Planning, Industrial and Economic Development Advisers group. Will he undertake to publish the report so that the public and hon. Members can examine it and ask questions about it? Furthermore, how much did the PIEDA group report cost the Exchequer? If the Secretary of State had been looking for cost-efficiency, he would have abandoned this farcical exercise.

Mr. Rifkind: I am very conscious of the fact that in many respects Caledonian MacBrayne has provided a good service to the islands. However, I have received from islanders many comments which suggest that they believe that there is considerable scope for improvement. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman has not hesitated to make clear to Caledonian MacBrayne various ways in which its service could be improved. The hon. Gentleman parrots, "They


need more resources." Is he aware that Caledonian MacBrayne has been the recipient of more resources under this Conservative Government than it received under any previous Labour Administration? I am referring not to EC funding but to the support given by the Scottish Office. Caledonian MacBrayne received £3·7 million to support its services in 1979. Today, it receives £6·5 million to support its services. Because of that extra help it has been able to increase its services to island communities quite significantly. During the past five years, the number of passengers carried has increased on virtually all routes, as has the number of commercial vehicles and cars.
We are conscious, however, of several ways in which the service can be improved. For example, Caledonian MacBrayne cannot interchange its crews between routes serving the Hebridean islands and those on the Clyde as they belong to different trade unions and have different restrictive practices. If the hon. Gentleman believes that such restrictive practices are in the interests of the company, I do not believe that his constituents agree with him.

Mr. Roger King: Although I welcome the privatisation of Scottish Buses, will my right hon. and learned Friend pay particular attention to employee participation and the operational requirements of existing companies and their English counterparts? I have in mind Scottish Citylink and its closely integrated operational relationship with the Birmingham-based National Express Group.

Mr. Rifkind: There are many such links, and it is important that, to ensure the best quality of service for consumers, such an integrated approach is encouraged through co-operation between the companies involved.

Mr. Gavin Strang: Can the Secretary of State assure the House that the pension rights of current and past employees of the Scottish Transport Group will not be adversely affected by privatisation?

Mr. Rifkind: I anticipate that any acquisition of a company would involve the continuation of existing rights. There may be areas on which there are later negotiations if any changes are proposed, but it is the normal practice, on acquisition of a company, to inherit pension obligations towards those who work for it.

Mr. William McKelvey: The Secretary of State accuses us of employing double standards towards the flogging off of Scottish assets, but is he not in danger of being similarly accused when he gleefully sells off public housing, giving generous discounts to tenants who have occupied homes? It cannot be beyond his wit to devise a scheme under which workers, many of whom have given a lifetime's service to Scottish industry, get generous discounts and an opportunity to buy into the industries in which they work.

Mr. Rifkind: I am delighted to welcome the hon. Gentleman as a convert to the principle of encouraging share ownership among employees and privatisation leading to greater ownership by those who work in companies. The hon. Gentleman has until now been an unqualified opponent of all privatisation. He seems now to be saying that he is in favour of privatisation if it can lead to management-employee buy-outs. He is working in the right direction, and we happily acknowledge that.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I hope that the Secretary of State has noted that two potential recruits for the Scottish Select Committee have sprung up to take part this afternoon. The right hon. and learned Gentleman failed to answer my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing), who asked how often he has travelled on a bus. How often has he struggled on to a bus with a collapsible pushchair, a toddler and an infant? [HON. MEMBERS: "Like Forsyth?"] Indeed. How often have any of his Front Bench colleagues done that?
What will be the consequences of privatisation for the safety and comfort of women and children passengers? Even when a family does have a car, the women and children of the household often have to use public transport because the husband uses the car for work. Did the safety and convenience of women and children passengers feature in the Secretary of State's discussions with Quayle Munro? If so, to what effect?

Mr. Rifkind: I have probably travelled on a bus as often as the Leader of the Opposition in the past six months. Although the other matters which the hon. Lady raised are important, I do not believe that the design of buses and their convenience for passengers with carry cots and other similar objects is likely to be affected significantly by ownership.

Mr. John Redwood: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on managing to establish cross-party support for privatisation in the form that he has outlined—employee buy-outs and participation—but will he say something about how his plans will affect the growth of competition in the industry, which is vital to improve services for the customer?

Mr. Rifkind: Under existing arrangements, the Scottish Bus Group, which owns all the companies that we are to privatise, if not a monopoly, is in a very dominant position. The replacement of that group by no fewer than 10 or 11 separate companies, each of which will compete with existing private sector companies and public transport companies, including the soon to be privatised PTC in Grampian, will undoubtedly give a substantial boost to real choice and real competition, very much to the benefit of the travelling public.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May we have—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is English."]

Mr. McKelvey: He is a Campbell.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Can we have an assurance that the highway hoodlum, Mr. Souter of Stagecoach, will not be allowed to buy any part of the Scottish Bus Group? Is the Secretary of State for Scotland aware that Mr. Souter dumped nearly 50 buses in the bus station in Keswick, having bought Cumberland Motor Services earlier this year? In effect, he blockaded the town to tourists and cost shopkeepers in my constituency millions of pounds because of his foolish actions, which he took only because the planning authorities refused to give him a planning permission? Is that the kind of man who will be allowed to run the Scottish bus industry in the future?

Mr. Rifkind: If Stagecoach makes proposals for the acquisition of any of these companies, they will be considered in the same way as proposals from any other applicant.

Mr. John McAllion: What evidence does the Secretary of State have for his statement a few moments ago that employees of the Tayside public transport company support privatisation of that company? There is no such support among workers in the Strathtay company. There is simply a recognition that they would prefer a management-employee buy-out to a takeover by a cash-rich predator from the south. Will the Secretary of State help those workers by giving them an assurance that, if their management-employee bid is realistic and commensurate with the value of the public assets involved, he will accept it and not sell out to a higher bidder elsewhere?

Mr. Rifkind: I have already explained the basis on which bids will be considered. I have said that, subject to these general criteria, we want to give preference to employee and management buy-outs. I cannot at the moment anticipate what the difference might be between proposals from the management and employees and from other applicants. We will apply exactly the same criteria as the regional council of which the hon. Gentleman was once a member.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on this announcement. Does he agree that, by breaking down the 3,000 buses into 11 units, he has avoided the predatory pricing which could have arisen? The likely outcome of my right hon. and learned Friend's proposals is an increase in services to rural areas, not a decrease. What plans does he have for privatisation of depots?

Mr. Rifkind: Depots are part of the individual companies and will be privatised as part of the larger privatisation. There were some suggestions from certain quarters about whether it would be desirable to privatise individual depots. We have to bear in mind the likely viability of a depot. It is probably in the interests of employees and all who use these services for us to use the companies to which I have referred as the units on which privatisation is based.

Mr. Bob McTaggart: The Secretary of State has said more than once that it is unacceptable for subsidised routes to be the same as unsubsidised ones. It is often the case, however—especially with the Scottish Bus Group—that subsidised routes are partly the same as unsubsidised ones. That fact has been reported to the traffic commissioners, who have found in favour of the private sector. Can we have an assurance that the same strict criteria will not apply to Caledonian MacBrayne or to any subsidised ferry routes to the islands, bearing in mind the severity of what could happen as a result?

Mr. Rifkind: As the hon. Gentleman knows, with regard to ferries, at Gourock-Dunoon there are two routes that are identical, for all practical purposes. The terminals are a few hundred yards apart on both sides of the route, and that is the point that I was making. I was saying not that there would be a law to prevent that, but that as a matter of policy it seemed an unnecessary use of public money to provide a subsidy so that such a situation could continue. The hon. Gentleman mentioned bus services. I share his view that it is not desirable in principle for a subsidy to be used to enable a company to compete

effectively with another that is not subsidised. We shall have to find a way in which such abuses—if they are abuses—can be resolved properly.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Will the Secretary of State accept that his statement, insofar as it concerns the Borders region, will be warmly welcomed, for two reasons? First, Lowland Scottish will be offered for sale as a free-standing entity. Secondly, his comments about the provisions for employee participation will be welcomed. That reflects the broadly based representations that were made by the trade unions, the local authorities and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel). Will the Secretary of State now return to the question of the financial assistance that will be available to management-employee teams? He would help them to prepare their bid better if he gave more explanation about the financial assistance involved.

Mr. Rifkind: I am grateful for that welcome for the terms of my statement. In reply to the second part of the question, we envisage that we may be able to give—although we cannot quantify it—financial assistance to employees and managers who are contemplating a bid. That financial assistance will enable them to obtain professional advice on how to put together a proposal, what is required to make a credible proposal and what the parameters should be, to ensure that they are not disadvantaged through lack of experience in the necessary mechanics for competing with companies or others who may wish to put in a bid.
The second form of assistance will apply to the time when the bids are being considered from the various applicants. We have said, although we cannot yet quantify it, that we shall give preference to management-employee buy-outs. The scale of that preference has yet to be determined.

Mr. John Marshall: When is the first unit of the Scottish Bus Group likely to be privatised? I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his emphasis on employee participation in the privatisation of the group. Does he accept that many regard that emphasis as the acceptable side of devolution in Scotland? As a former convener of Aberdeen municipal transport committee, I congratulate the Socialists of Aberdeen on securing the objective that I failed to achieve—privatisation of that service.

Mr. Rifkind: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's generous compliment to his one-time political opponents. I am sure that he never expected to live to see the day when the Socialists of Aberdeen would join those of other parties in support of privatising the local bus service.
I cannot give a specific timing for these disposals, but the Transport (Scotland) Bill, which provides for the flotation, is to be tabled today and, subject to Parliament's approval, we hope that the necessary legislation will be enacted during the current Session.

Mr. George Foulkes: Does the Secretary of State recall his weasel words about rural routes at the time of deregulation? Is he aware that many communities in my constituency have lost services, particularly at the weekends and at off-peak times? It is no use for him to rabbit on about route mileage when all the buses are running on the same urban routes,


with different operators. We want to talk about rural routes. Can the Secretary of State give any guarantee that services will not be decimated under privatisation as they were at the time of deregulation?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that there are two relevant points here. First, route mileage by bus services in Scotland has gone up since deregulation.

Mr. Foulkes: I said that.

Mr. Rifkind: There is no need for the hon. Gentleman to become apoplectic. The route mileage has gone up, not down. If the hon. Gentleman becomes upset when I agree with him, God knows what he will be like when I disagree with him.
As he knows, Strathclyde regional council is perfectly able to provide public funds to support the continuation of routes that individual companies do not want to provide. The regional council is the appropriate authority to decide whether there is a social need for a bus service on a particular route.

Mr. Brian Wilson: As far as Caledonian MacBrayne is concerned, will the Secretary of State accept my welcome for 80 per cent. of his statement, which represents retreat? Perhaps in this context we can magnanimously and temporarily forgive him the 20 per cent. that is an ideological figleaf. Will he confirm that his rather patronising remarks about value for money do not suggest a further cut in the CalMac subsidy? Will he accept that a move to Oban should be a matter for debate rather than diktat?
Will the Secretary of State accept that, if the status quo is not an option for buses, an employee buy-out is the best means of common ownership, which will maintain jobs, standards and services? Will he assist that option with substance, rather than mere hope? Will he note our apprehension about predatory bids and will he note that there are plenty of Scottish cowboys, some of them on board stagecoaches?

Mr. Rifkind: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box for his maiden appearance. I am glad that he has used the occasion to welcome the Government's statement—or at least 80 per cent. of it. I hope that that is a useful precedent that he will follow in the weeks and months to come.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about the level of subsidy for Caledonian MacBrayne. Naturally, we shall ensure that the subsidy is at the level required to ensure a lifeline to the islands and that the good quality of service that there has been—particularly in the past nine years—is maintained.
As for employee buy-outs, the hon. Gentleman heard what I had to say on the matter and I am glad that he too seems to be joining those who, under certain conditions, are delighted to welcome privatisation.

Prime Minister's Statement

Mr. Kevin McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday afternoon the Prime Minister abused Question Time to make a statement on the extradition of Father Patrick Ryan. She said:
The failure to secure Ryan's arrest is a matter of very grave concern to the Government. It is no use Governments adopting great declarations and commitments about fighting terrorism if they then lack the resolve to put them into practice."—[Official Report, 29 November 1988; Vol. 142, c. 574.]
That is quite right. We wish that the Prime Minister would follow the example of her own words. The basis of the Prime Minister's claim is that the warrant was sent to Dublin, with additional documentation, on Friday night. We now know from the Crown Prosecution Service that that was not the case. The Prime Minister has misled the House.
The Prime Minister also failed to mention the dilatoriness of the Government in dealing with the Ryan case. Ryan was arrested on 30 June, but the Government failed to serve warrants until 5 September. On 25 November a decision was taken. [Interruption.] It is a point of order. The Government obviously do not like being taken to task when the Prime Minister misleads the House.
On 25 November the decision was taken that the Government would put forward demands to the Irish Government, and the Irish Government were expected to do in five minutes what the Belgian Government did not do in five months and for which the British Government were responsible because of the delay in issuing the warrants.

Mr. Speaker: With great respect, I cannot answer questions of that kind.

Mr. McNamara: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I am coming to a point of order. The matters that I am describing are the background to it. Has the Prime Minister asked you for an opportunity to come to the House to apologise for deliberately misleading it on the issue of the warrants and—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he cannot allege that any hon. Member or right hon. Member has deliberately misled the House. He must withdraw that allegation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] Withdraw the allegation, please—[interruption.] Order. We had this unhappy business yesterday. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that allegation, please.

Mr. McNamara: With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, before I was interrupted by Conservative Members I was immediately going to withdraw that remark if you had said so, because I respect you and the Chair, which Conservative Members do not always seem to do.
I was going to ask you, Mr. Speaker, when we could expect the Prime Minister to apologise to the House and what arrangements would be made—this is relevant to what happened yesterday—to have the situation recorded properly in the Official Report.

Mr. Speaker: What the hon. Gentleman has raised with me is news to me. I am sure that what he has said will be noted on the Government Front Bench, but it is not a matter of order for me.

Mr. John Morris: Following the precedent set in the case of Patrick McVee, when I gave the Attorney-General my support, has the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked for leave to make a statement on the case of Patrick Ryan? Is not the Attorney-General's proper role to advise the Government and the House, rather than to brief the press through his minions? Would it not be more dignified for proper statements to be made to the House by responsible Ministers, rather than for the Prime Minister to abuse Question Time, so that we can have confirmation of what the Attorney-General said on 14 June—whether it still exists or not—namely, that there was a close and personal relationship between himself and his opposite number in the Republic?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot answer that. Again, it is a matter for the Attorney-General.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I shall take all points of order, on this matter together, because we have a busy day. I call Mr. Benn.

Mr. Tony Benn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The point of order that I wish to raise arises out of the exchange yesterday, but is totally different in character. The hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates), whom I put on notice that I would raise this matter, said:
one of the most wanted terrorists has been let free".
In his question in relation to that case he then said:
many…still believe that the Irish Republic is a safe haven for some terrorists".
In response—I shall not quote it all—the Prime Minister said:
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that, although the Government of the Republic of Ireland make fine-sounding speeches".—[Official Report, 29 November 1988; Vol. 142, c.574–75.]
That question and the assent given to it by the Prime Minister raise two points of order. First, legal proceedings have been taken by the Attorney-General in the case of Father Ryan. As he is abroad, the legal proceedings initiated here have been taken up in Belgium and the Republic. It has been a long practice of the House, which you have rigidly enforced in respect of "Spycatcher", where there was a case in Australia, and in the case of the miners' strike, where miners were coming before the courts, that it was not in order for Members of the House of Commons to confirm or to comment on cases that were sub judice, because the process of bringing the case before the court had begun . I hope—

Mr. Speaker: This case is not yet sub judice.

Mr. Benn: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I am not asking you to resolve today the case that I am putting to you, but legal proceedings have begun, and in this context they are legal proceedings with a view to bringing somebody before a court. If somebody was wanted by the police in this country and was named in the House as if he had already been convicted, I feel certain that you would interpret that as sub judice.
Secondly, it is clearly a misuse of privilege to use the protection of the House of Commons to make such an allegation. Father Ryan is wanted on a serious charge. It could hardly be more serious. It is in accordance with the practice of the British courts that anyone charged is presumed innocent until convicted. Therefore, when a senior Member of the House says, and it is confirmed by the Prime Minister, that that person is a terrorist, it is impossible from that moment on for that man to have a fair trial. The BBC broadcast those remarks and every newspaper has highlighted them.
The reason why I draw this to your attention, Mr. Speaker—I make no criticism of your conduct of business yesterday—is that the sub judice rule and the self-limitation on privilege are to prevent the House of Commons from becoming a lynch mob. In my submission, yesterday it became a lynch mob, headed by the Prime Minister, whose remarks are bound to prejudice any jury or judge if Father Ryan is brought to this country.
Finally, the reason why this is important is that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) said at Question Time, as a result of the Guildford, Woolwich and Birmingham bombings, many people abroad—this was confirmed by what the Prime Minister said yesterday—do not believe that Irish prisoners get justice in British courts.

Mr. Speaker: I advise the right hon. Gentleman that this case is not yet sub judice and I advise the House that every hon. Member must take responsibility for what he says. As I have said before, we have freedom of speech here, but it should be used with great caution. What the right hon. Gentleman has said about any man being innocent until proved guilty is absolutely correct.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that I should call the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates).

Mr. Michael Mates: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) for the courtesy of telling me that he was going to raise this matter. I used the phrase yesterday solely in the context of my outrage at the fact that that person was not being brought here to face trial. It was not intended to be an intimation of guilt. Strictly, I should have said, "Ryan is the man the security forces most want in connection with serious terrorist offences." I am happy to make that plain.

Mr. Stuart Randall: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe that yesterday the Prime Minister abused the proceedings of the House in the most disgraceful way imaginable. Essentially, she made a statement during Question Time. I believe that her motive was to grab the headlines from my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), who slaughtered the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government's economic policy. In her abuse of our proceedings the Prime Minister raised the question of the extradition of Father Ryan in the most politically insensitive way imaginable, because that is a matter for the Attorney-General. The Prime Minister also prevented hon. Members from properly questioning the Government on the mess that they have got into on the question of warrants.
My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is to inquire whether, if the Attorney-General asks to make a statement at 7 o'clock this evening, you will look at that sympathetically.

Mr. Speaker: Of course I will.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. As we have a heavy day ahead of us, I ask hon. Gentlemen whether these are points of order that I can deal with, because so far, apart from that of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), they are not really points of order for which I have responsibility.

Mr. Bob Cryer: This is a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The various points of order have raised what seems to us a potential abuse of Question Time by the Prime Minister, who incorporated into an answer what was, in effect, a statement. As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope) launched an attack on two Governments—these are serious matters—and the Prime Minister replied in kind. There was no opportunity for Opposition Members to question her, as would be the case if a statement was made.
There is an alternative for you to consider, Mr. Speaker, because Standing Order No. 17 states:
No question shall be taken after half-past three o'clock, except … questions which have not appeared on the paper, but which are in Mr. Speaker's opinion of an urgent character, and relate either to matters of public importance or to the arrangement of business.
That Standing Order relates to private notice questions, but fits precisely the circumstances that you could use, Mr. Speaker, if, in your opinion, the Prime Minister or any other Minister abused his or her position. Ministers are in a powerful position, because the media report the comments of the Prime Minister carefully and closely. You know, Mr. Speaker, that if the Prime Minister is determined to draw the spotlight away from the economic disaster of the Chancellor and on to something else, she can do that.
As the Executive is accountable to the House, and you, as Mr. Speaker, are the Chairman of the House, it seems to me that by using that Standing Order you could state that because a matter is of an "urgent character" and relates
to matters of public importance
as was clearly the case on this occasion, you could take questions about it after 3.30 pm. Your willingness to be prepared to look at this would be a useful reminder to the Government not to abuse this place as they so badly and blatantly did yesterday.
I realise that the Standing Order gives you that right, but, according to "Erskine May", precedents require you generally to receive an application for a private notice question before 12 o'clock. That is not part of our Standing Orders. It is simply a convention which, if you wished, you could change. I suggest that you reflect on my suggestion, Mr. Speaker, and make a statement—as is customary for the Speaker—so that Mr. Speaker is given a little more elbow room and a little more ability to make a decision when, in his judgment, the Government are seriously abusing this place. We should all be opposed to that.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. The trouble with open questions at Prime Minister's Question Time is that nobody in the House,

least of all the Speaker, knows the question that will be asked or the answer that will be given. I cannot divine that sort of thing. It is true that this matter was in the minds of many hon. Members yesterday. I shall certainly reflect on what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. So that we can put into context today's protests by Opposition Members, can you confirm that if, yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition had thought that this was an important subject and had stood up on Question No. 4, you would have called him?

Mr. Speaker: By tradition, when the Leader of the Opposition stands up he is called.

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier this afternoon the Press Association tapes were quoting Government sources as admitting that the warrants issued in respect of Father Ryan were defective. It seems extraordinary that in Dublin the Attorney-General is giving advice very freely indeed. The Attorney-General seems to be briefing the British media very freely. The Prime Minister is criticising the Belgians and the Government of the Republic of Ireland, and it seems that the guilty party is the bungling British Attorney-General, who cannot at this late stage get these warrants right. It is extraordinary that he is not even in the Chamber to listen to these points of order.
Could you arrange for the Attorney-General to report and account to the House on why he has been unable to issue correct warrants in respect of Father Ryan? That clearly lies at the heart of this matter. It is the Attorney-General's responsibility to account for the office that he holds, and he also has a responsibility to the House.

Mr. Speaker: I have not had the advantage of seeing the tapes, but I pick up the hon. Gentleman's general proposition. If it is true—I do not know whether it is—that the press has been briefed, in my judgment the House should also be briefed.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: May I proffer a suggestion, Mr. Speaker, which you may care to think about overnight on the matter of warrants and the sub judice rule? If the man has been accused and charged in this country, of course, the sub judice rule applies. A warrant is issued when a person is not within the jurisdiction of the court. If, after that, at any time he comes into the jurisdiction of the court he becomes the subject matter of the charge to which the warrant relates. Would it not be sensible, when you review these matters—I do not require an answer today, but perhaps a statement could be made [Interruption.] I apologise for the bad manners of Conservative Members. When you, Mr. Speaker, and those who advise you have had time to consider my suggestion, perhaps a statement could be made, or the rules slightly changed so that they cover either the moment when the man is charged or when a warrant is issued against him in this country.

Mr. Speaker: A change in the sub judice rule would be a matter for the House, but if the hon. Gentleman thinks through what he and other hon. Members have been saying, he may feel that the House would wish further to debate the whole matter. At the moment the matter is not sub judice.

Mr. Alan Williams: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point is based on what you said a few moments ago. We appreciate your comment that if the press has been briefed the House should be briefed and, as you would expect, we go along with that. The Leader of the House is in the Chamber and the support that you will get from the Government will perhaps be demonstrated by the way in which they respond to the clear injunction from you that there should be a statement. May I, through you, ask the Leader of the House if he will talk to his colleagues to ensure that we have a statement at 7 o'clock?

Mr. Speaker: Let us leave that matter, because I have a statement to make.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Proceedings of the House

Mr. Speaker: I have been reflecting upon yesterday's debate on the Queen's Speech. It has been represented to me by several right hon. and hon. Members that there was an attempt to disrupt the opening speeches by co-ordinated interruptions. I hope that that was not the case and that it will never be the case. I entirely accept that there should be cut and thrust in debate in the House and, on occasions, interventions, but not organised interruptions, which are a very different matter. Furthermore, I hope that personal allegations against hon. Members will not be raised again in the way that they were raised yesterday.
The House, in its wisdom, long ago laid down a proper procedure for pursuing complaints about these matters. In relation to what was alleged yesterday, and in order to clear up the matter without any equivocation, perhaps it would be right for me to read to the House once again what was said yesterday, because the letter read out by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) was not addressed to me. It was a letter to him, not to me.
The hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) drew attention to what he thought had been a "fiddling of the record". He asked me to confirm
that the record had in fact been changed
and that I had apologised. The hon. Gentleman said:
The assurance that I now seek from the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East is
whether it was or not. I said:
I subsequently looked into the matter and I had an assurance from the Editor of Hansard that no alteration was made at the specific request of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown). It was a mistake in the Hansard reporting.
I went on to confirm:
The mistake was not the mistake of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East."—[Official Report, 29 November 1988; Vol. 142, c. 583.]
I hope that that puts the matter into its proper perspective.

Mr. Tim Yeo: I am glad to have an opportunity of accepting unreservedly your guidance and ruling about the manner in which personal allegations should be made in the House.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be in any way impertinent to ask you, as you have understandably dealt very toughly and quickly with some of us on other matters, why yesterday, knowing the background, and with all the information that was available to you, you did not call to order the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Home Secretary? Some of us feel that if we had tried to do what the Home Secretary's PPS did we would have been shut up, with short shrift, and rightly, by you, Mr. Speaker. Why did that not happen yesterday?

Mr. Speaker: I am glad to have an opportunity to explain that. The matter that the hon. Gentleman raised took place a month ago. Good though my memory is, I did not immediately recollect it or appreciate what he was saying until later, when he made the allegation. I then recollected what had happened and I made the comments that are clearly on the record in Hansard.

Mr. Stanley Orme: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I thank you for the clarification and the statement that you have made to the House, following, as


you have said, representations made to you? Would it not have been better if the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) had made a proper statement to the House and cleared up this matter? Many of us feel that his conduct yesterday was outrageous. His standing has gone down in the minds of many people because of the way in which he conducted himself. While he refuses completely to withdraw his allegation, we can only hold him in contempt.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask for your guidance. because this is a serious matter. I hope that it is not being suggested that it is not possible, in a very important debate, for hon. Members on both sides of the House politely to ask an Opposition or Government spokesmen to give way—[Interruption.] May I make my point?—so that they can make an intervention. We all accept that organised barracking is wrong, and I was not aware that there had been such a thing by those on the Government Benches. [Interruption.] I am as entitled as anybody else to make my point.
This morning I read in Hansard the debates on the Queen's Speech for the past 20 years, and on every one of those occasions Opposition Front Bench spokesmen were prepared to give way on a number of occasions and discuss what they would do if they were in government. Yesterday the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) gave way on only two occasions and refused to give way to two of my hon. Friends.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have made a statement on this matter in order to clear it up. I do not think that we want to take it any further, except to say that we have a long tradition in the House that we resolve our disagreements by argument, not by any form of disruption, and I hope that that will always be the case.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: No, I shall not hear any more points of order on this matter.

Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: If it is a different point of order, I will hear it.

Mr. Ewing: It is not a different point of order. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down!"] No, I will not sit down, and I will not take lectures on morality from hon. Members who conduct themselves in the way that the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) has done. The reputation and integrity of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) have been besmirched, and I say to you quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, that you have a responsibility to protect that reputation. I do not care about myself, but I care a great deal about the way in which the affairs of the House are conducted. I have a great love for the House of Commons, and I care a great deal about the image of the House in the country, and what happened yesterday at the behest of the hon. Member for Suffolk, South has done immeasurable damage to the standing of the House of Commons.
I am worried about two matters. First, my understanding—I apologise in advance if this is not true—is that the letter from the Editor of Hansard to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East was copied and

sent to you. If that is true, it gives me the clear impression that you were not made aware of the contents of that letter and therefore you were caught in the position that you were yesterday, so there has been some breakdown.
The second point is that in successive news bulletins by the BBC yesterday information was given that the speech to be made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East was to be disrupted. That information was given out by the Government. My hon. Friends have said that the apology from the hon. Member for Suffolk, South is insufficient. We are asking too much from the hon. Gentleman. Having seen his conduct yesterday, I do not believe that he has the ability or the standing to apologise properly. I am quite content to leave him in the gutter, where he belongs.

Mr. Speaker: I have one final word to say on this matter, in answer to what the hon. Gentleman has swid. I received a copy of that letter about a month ago. It was addressed to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) and not to me. I hope the House will accept that it is not my practice—nor, I hope, the practice of other hon. Members—to disclose letters addressed to other hon. Members.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The month is the point.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that the House is grateful to you for outlining the rules on this matter, and I am sure also that the House will take those rules to heart. In view of the significance of the letter from the Editor of Hansard to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), and the fact that you now have a copy of that letter and that it is rather central to the remarks made yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo), would it not be helpful to the House if that letter were placed in the official record, and perhaps you could make arrangements to do that?

Mr. Speaker: It is not for me to read the letter out. It was not addressed to me.

Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a matter that reflects on the integrity of the Chair. Hansard of yesterday shows that you asked the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) to withdraw his allegation against my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown). The hon. Member for Suffolk, South said:
I gladly withdraw it, Mr. Speaker, if we have an assurance that no… Opposition Member will seek to tamper with today's record.
You, Mr. Speaker, said:
Order. No qualification please. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw the allegation absolutely.
The hon. Member for Suffolk, South said:
I withdraw the specific allegation that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East falsified the record."—[Official Report, 29 November 1988; Vol. 142, c. 584.]
I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that that was a sheer defiance of your ruling. It is part of our rules that we do not cast aspersions on individuals, nor on hon. Members in general.
The public in general, not only in this country, but internationally, look to Hansard for an accurate record of our proceedings, and look to Hansard to understand our


constitution and to understand the honour of Members. The fact that the hon. Member for Suffolk, South refused to withdraw such an unfounded and unwarranted allegation is a matter of great honour. He would do himself a great deal of credit, and it would reflect credit on the House of Commons, if you gave him one last opportunity to withdraw the allegation and apologise for this disgraceful calumny.

Mr. Yeo: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I accepted the hon. Gentleman's withdrawal yesterday. Is he seeking to say something more?

Mr. Yeo: I simply wanted to draw attention to the fact that yesterday I said:
I withdraw the specific allegation that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East falsified the record."—[Official Report, 29 November 1988; Vol. 142, c. 584.]
Today I have confirmed that I accept your ruling about the manner in which personal allegations should be made. A great deal of trouble would have been saved had the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East copied to me the letter that he received from the Editor of the Official Report.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that we should have any re-run of this matter.

Mr. Frank Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It might be better if the House were reminded of what has happened on this matter over a long period. In the debate that my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) opened and concluded so brilliantly, to the disturbance of Conservative Members, he was asked, in an intervention, about certain matters. He replied that there was no such commitment, or that there were no such commitments. The difference was immaterial, as hon. Members will see if they look at the record. The hon. Member, as I am obliged to call him by the traditions of the House, for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) two days later asserted, without any justification, or without approaching my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East—

Mr. Yeo: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Dobson: —had gone to the Official Report and requested a change in the words, and he said that he did not blame the Editor of the Official Report or the Reporters, who might not be entirely appreciative of the significance of the change. So he apparently knew what my hon. Friend had done, and knew that the Hansard reporters were not responsible. That was what he said. You—I regret to say this, Mr. Speaker—apparently without checking with my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East, gave the impression that he had in some way been party to what had happened.
Following that, very properly, the Editor of Hansard wrote and apologised to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East for what had happened and took the entire responsibility for what had gone wrong on his shoulders and said that it was one of the Hansard staff who had got it wrong. If anyone had to set the record straight, clearly it was not my hon. Friend.
Yesterday, the hon. Member for Suffolk, South raised this matter again and wholly falsely asserted that my hon. Friend had brought pressure to bear to falsify the record. Then he said that he had been fiddling the record and only after pressure from Opposition Members did you, Mr. Speaker, get him to make his partial withdrawal. We think that it is quite unsatisfactory for the House to be left in that position and that an apology from the hon. Gentleman would be proper.
Reverting to the beginning of your statement, Mr. Speaker, when you said that you did not like barracking and organised interruptions, you may recall that the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) raised a point of order about this letter. About half a minute later, when you were otherwise engaged, the Tory Chief Whip urged him to try to have another go at you and raise the point of order again. He is the source of all this trouble. The Tory Chief Whip is the person who organises this, and we could do with an apology from both of them.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have to say that I consider that to be a most disgraceful intervention by the hon. Gentleman. This is an important matter and I fully support the way in which you have sought to deal with this disagreeable incident. I fully support what you have done.
It seems to me that the letter from the Editor of Hansard to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) set out the facts. I therefore wonder whether you might consider what my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) said and see to it that the letter is published in the Official Report. That would then put an end to the matter.

Mr. Speaker: The letter was not addressed to me.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: rose—

Mr. Speaker: We must now move on. The hon. Gentleman puts in jeopardy his hon. Friends who wish to speak in the next debate.

Mr. Rooker: This is a different point of order, Mr. Speaker, which is intended to be helpful. We have already spent a considerable amount of time on an important issue. As no hon. Member has made a personal statement, everyone else is fully entitled to raise the issue day after day. With respect, I put it to Conservative Front-Bench Members that they should suggest that the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) makes a personal statement. That could not be questioned. When that is done, that will be the end of the matter.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has heard that.

Ballot for Notices of Motions for Friday 16 December

The Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. John Watts
Mr. Nicholas Bennett
Mr. Nicholas Bennett.

Mr. Speaker: I think that we should have a redraw. [Interruption.]

Mr. Nicholas Baker: I think that you may have misread the names, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps it was Nicholas Baker?

Mr. Speaker: It looks like Nicholas Bennett to me. I think that we should have a redraw for the final name. It is Mr. Kenneth Hind.

Later—

Mr. Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You said that you would redraw the ballot, but all you did was redraw the third name. You left in the name of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), who had put in two names and had virtually cheated by doing so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I withdraw the phrase "virtually cheated".
If an hon. Member votes twice, his vote is cancelled. Whether by accident or not, the hon. Gentleman had two names in the ballot and, according to that ballot, he still has second place. That cannot be right. As you said that the ballot should be redrawn, the whole ballot should be redrawn.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I have just had a word with the Clerks and discovered that, inadvertently, it was the same book that was in the Lobby. I was not aware of that and therefore apologise. I certainly had no intention of cheating and, if the House thinks that I should not have second place, I should be happy for you to draw the names again.

Mr. Speaker: I shall draw one more.

Mr. Cohen: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The final name is Mr. Robert G. Hughes.

BILLS PRESENTED

ELECTRICITY BILL

Mr. Secretary Parkinson, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Hurd, Mr. Secretary Walker, Mr. Secretary Fowler, Mr. Secretary Ridley, Mr. Secretary Rifkind, Mr. Secretary Channon, Mr. Tony Newton, Mr. Peter Morrison and Mr. Michael Spicer, presented a Bill to provide for the appointment and functions of a Director General of Electricity Supply and of consumers' committees for the electricity supply industry; to make new provision with respect to the supply of electricity through electric lines and the generation and transmission of electricity for such supply; to abolish the Electricity Consumers' Council and the Consultative Councils established under the Electricity Act 1947; to provide for the vesting of the property, rights and liabilities of the Electricity Boards and the Electricity Council in companies nominated by the Secretary of State and the subsequent dissolution of those Boards and that

Council; to provide for the giving of financial assistance in connection with the storage and reprocessing of nuclear fuel, the treatment, storage and disposal of radioactive waste and the decommissioning of nuclear installations; to amend the Rights of Entry (Gas and Electricity Boards) Act 1954 and the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 4].

OFFICIAL SECRETS BILL

Mr. Secretary Hurd, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Sir Geoffrey Howe, Mr. Secretary Younger, Mr. Secretary King, Mr. Secretary Rifkind and Mr. John Patten, presented a Bill to replace section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 by provisions protecting more limited classes of official information: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 9].

TRANSPORT (SCOTLAND) BILL

Mr. Secretary Rifkind, supported by Mr. Secretary Channon, Mr. Norman Lamont, Mr. Ian Lang and Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, presented a Bill to make provision for the transfer to the private sector of the operations of the Scottish Transport Group, other than its shipping operations; for the transfer of its shipping operations to the Secretary of State; to provide for the dissolution of the Group; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 10].

EMPLOYMENT BILL

Mr. Secretary Fowler, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Sir Geoffrey Howe, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Hurd, Mr. Secretary Walker, Mr. Secretary King, Mr. Secretary Baker, Mr. Secretary Rifkind, Mr. Tony Newton and Mr. John Cope, presented a Bill to amend the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 in pursuance of the Directive of the Council of the European Communities, dated 9th February 1976, (No. 76/207/EEC) on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions; to repeal or amend prohibitions or requirements relating to the employment of young persons and other categories of employees; to make other amendments of the law relating to employment; to repeal section 1(1) (a) of the Celluloid and Cinematograph Film Act 1922; to dissolve the Training Commission; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 8].

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,

That the draft Merchant Shipping (Safety at Work Regulations) (Non-UK Ships) Regulations 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.

That the Agriculture Improvement (Variation) (No. 3) Scheme 1988 (S.I., 1988, No. 2066) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.

That the Customs Duties (ECSC) (Amendment No. 3) Order 1988 (S.I., 1988, No. 2055) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. John. M. Taylor.]

Orders of the Day — Petroleum Royalties (Relief) and Continental Shelf Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Peter Morrison): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I begin by welcoming the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) to the Opposition Front Bench. I congratulate him on his appointment. I know that he has a strong personal interest in North sea oil and gas activities, and the House will be more than aware that he has a strong constituency interest. Indeed, over the past 25 years, Aberdeen has played a vital part in the development of our North sea oil activities, which has not always been an easy task.
The Bill is short, and it has two specific purposes. Its first purpose is to end royalties for new fields in the southern basin of the North sea as well as onshore. That will implement the commitment that was given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget statement. The Bill's second purpose is to implement the agreement that the United Kingdom Government reached with the Republic of Ireland on the determination of the continental shelf.
Perhaps it would be sensible to put the Bill in the context of the North sea generally before I explain it in detail. It is fair to say that, when I came into office with my right hon. and hon. Friends 18 months ago, the situation in the North sea was a little bleak, and had been so for a while. That had been caused by a massive and entirely unpredicted fall in the price of oil. I am happy to say that the picture now is much better. I can paint an upbeat and optimistic picture, but it is not as upbeat and optimistic as I would like.
The House will recall what happened on the evening of 6 July. That was the night of the Piper Alpha disaster. When I went to Aberdeen in the early hours of 7 July, I was met by a stunned city and stunned citizens. I think that hon. Members in all parts of the House and the entire industry remain deeply upset by a disaster of such major proportions. Since then, the aim of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and myself has been to ensure that everything is done to prevent such an accident in future. My right hon. Friend has said many times, as have I, that all the information available should be made public. As for the future, if there are lessons to be learned, they should be learned properly. Hence, immediately after 6 July, the technical investigation was set up by my right hon. Friend, to be carried out by the safety directorate of my Department. Its task was to produce an early report on what had happened. The House will know that the interim report was published on 29 September.
Within a week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that there would be a public inquiry under the chairmanship of Lord Cullen, with wide terms of reference. That inquiry will start on 19 January 1989 in Aberdeen. Before then, the technical investigation team will produce a further report, which will be made available

to Lord Cullen. At the same time, the work of the safety directorate continues. The House will know that the information which has been obtained has already led to the directorate asking that the industry should consider better ways to improve the pipeline isolation systems. At the time of the publication of the interim report, we asked the industry to examine six further areas in the light of what we had learnt.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I wish to say publicly that I appreciate the work that has been done by the Minister of State and the Secretary of State in setting up the technical inquiry and the Cullen inquiry. The Cullen inquiry has begun in a way that shows that it will be an open and public hearing.
I ask the Minister to comment on the great unhappiness felt by those involved in the oil industry throughout the United Kingdom, and not in Aberdeen alone, about the way in which the debris from the Piper Alpha platform has been dealt with following the disaster. Many bodies are still missing. It is believed that there are technical lessons to be learned on the sea bed. Has the Minister reviewed his position on collapsing the platform on the sea bed?

Mr. Morrison: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, as is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, for his remarks about our conduct since the disaster early in July. Secondly, if he will bear with me on the abandonment of the Piper Alpha platform and the evidence that is currently below the sea, I shall deal with those matters if, with the leave of the House, I have the opportunity to reply at the end of the debate.
These are technical matters and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend and I, along with the entire Department, have examined them extremely carefully. We have consulted outside experts. I think that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased that we have consulted other interests, especially the Scottish fishermen. He may be aware that I have had a meeting with the Scottish fishermen. There are important implications, and a decision will not be taken easily. If it is helpful to the hon. Gentleman and the House, I shall deal specifically with these matters at the end of the debate.
The areas covered by the interim report produced by the technical investigation team were permit-to-work systems, automatic initiation of fire-fighting systems, operability of life rafts, evacuation routes, the integrity of emergency systems and venting and explosions. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that safety has always been of paramount importance. That remains the Government's view. It is wrong to say that we are seeking to approach perfection when we examine safety. We do not believe that there is safety perfection, because that would imply that there is nothing more to do. I hope that no hon. Member will take that view.
As I have said, we shall want to learn everything that we can from the public inquiry. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that, if Lord Cullen's report identifies improvements that could be made to the safety regime, the recommendations will be considered extremely seriously.
Piper Alpha must remain in our minds. Even so, it would be wrong not to recognise that the story of the North sea over the past 25 years has been one of tremendous success for the United Kingdom. It has come about thanks to the superb managerial and technical


achievements of the international oil industry. It is a story of success, however, for everyone who has been involved. Too few of our constituents—I speak of those of us who represent constituencies that are not close to the North sea or that do not have a specific oil interest—understand what has been achieved and appreciate the enormous input of North sea oil activities to the United Kingdom as a whole. Even the optimists of 25 years ago could not have dreamt that we would come so far.
We have now entered a new phase. The largest discoveries have probably been made, and oil prices continue to fluctuate. Even so, the North sea oil industry continues to be both vigorous and successful. Given the circumstances, I believe that the industry is more vigorous now than it has ever been. I shall recite one or two facts to demonstrate what has been happening this year.
We in the Department have approved 24 projects so far. That is new investment of about £3·1 billion. It is the largest number of project approvals in any one year. In 1987, 13 projects were approved, amounting to new investment of £1·2 billion. These figures tell us that we are almost £2 billion ahead in terms of new investment. A further 13 projects are currently under discussion.
At the same time, drilling activity is high. So far this year, 121 exploration and appraisal wells have been started. That is a two-thirds improvement over the equivalent period last year. Four discoveries have been made, and a further five announcements have been made on tests on structures adjacent to existing finds. In addition, 135 development wells have been started, against 100 over the first nine months of 1987. That is only 10 short of the record year of 1985. These figures are a tribute to the initiative and determination of the oil industry—and when I say that, I mean everyone involved in it. It demonstrates their great adaptability and will to introduce new technology. It is those traits which lead me to believe that the North sea oil and gas industry has a continuing and exciting future.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: There is some confusion, at least among Conservative Members, as a result of the Committee deliberations in June on the Finance Bill, as it then was. Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the oil allowance of 125,000 tonnes per chargeable period is fiscal neutrality? He will be aware that the producers' argument is that that figure is too low. His comments on these matters will help the development of the debate.

Mr. Morrison: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for potentially drawing me out of order. However, he anticipates remarks that I was about to make about the package as a whole—because this is part of a package, as my hon. Friend rightly said.
The purpose of the Bill is to contribute to the aim that I have outlined—to continue to create the right atmosphere so that further exploration and development can proceed. It has always been the Government's policy to keep the North sea fiscal regime under review and to make changes where that was desirable to ensure that the climate continues to be favourable to such initiatives. The abolition of royalty for new fields in the northern basin in 1983 was an example of that policy.
The Bill represents a further step in the same direction. There were a number of significant gas prospects in the southern basin of the North sea which were economic

before tax, but which could have been inhibited by the fiscal regime. The greatest potential obstacle to their development was royalty, because its impact is relatively insensitive to field economics.
As I have said, the ending of royalty for new fields in the southern basin formed part of a package—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) referred—of changes in the North sea fiscal regime which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his Budget statement. Taken as a whole over the lives of the fields concerned, that change is expected to be revenue-neutral.
It would not be wholly appropriate for me to go into great detail about the discussions in Committee stage on the Finance Bill earlier this year. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke and other hon. Friends will have noticed that the original proposal was for an oil tax allowance of just 100,000 tonnes. After we had listened very carefully to the arguments from the oil industry and examined new evidence presented to us, that figure was increased to 125,000 tonnes. As I have said, that is intended to be revenue-neutral, and that is the intention of the new figure of 125,000 tonnes.
If the industry responds positively to the package, there is a real prospect that most, if not all, of Britain's gas requirements for the 1990s can be found from our own resources. In fact, there is already evidence that the industry is responding. As the House will know, earlier this year Hamilton Brothers announced a decision directly as a result of the Government's intention to abolish royalties in the southern basin to develop the Ravernspurn North field. That development represents an investment of £600 million in 1·25 trillion cu ft of gas reserves which would not otherwise have taken place.
The Bill will also end royalties for new onshore fields. That will provide a useful encouragement to onshore development. That aspect was also foreshadowed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in his Budget. While talking about onshore exploration, I want to raise another point. I am more than aware that other difficulties must be overcome to promote onshore exploration and development. Of course it is right that local authorities are and should be concerned about what is involved in onshore developments. However, it is also of the greatest importance that local debate should be well informed and should not be misled by the exaggerated fears and anxieties that sometimes arise.
As those hon. Members who have had the opportunity to visit British Petroleum's Wytch Farm development will know, a well run oilfield onshore can be a perfectly acceptable neighbour as far as environmental impact is concerned. One of our oldest onshore oilfields at Dukes Woods near Eakring, Newark has been recognised as an ideal environment for wild orchids, moths and butterflies which are rare in Nottinghamshire. In 1972, the area was notified as a site of special scientific interest and, through the collaboration of the industry and the Nottingham Trust for Conservation, the well sites have been preserved as a nature trail. I mention that because of the irony that, if the same development were proposed today, it would no doubt be the subject of great concern on environmental grounds.
The other elements of the package of the North sea fiscal changes which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in his Budget statement have already been approved by the House and implemented through the


Finance (No. 2) Act 1988. As Opposition Members will recall, in Committee on the Finance Bill the then Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), said that he believed that the Government were right in principle to remove the penalty of royalties.
We must ensure that the momentum to which I have referred is maintained. It is no exaggeration to claim that the United Kingdom is becoming the offshore oil capital of the world. The North sea has created nearly 30,000 offshore jobs, and, according to the most recent reports that I can find, some 75,000 onshore jobs in Scotland alone. That represents a valuable part of our industrial base, which we must do our utmost to sustain.
Clause 1 will exempt new fields in the southern basin and on shore from royalties as from 1 July this year. Clause 2 is needed only to ensure that the similar exemption already granted for new fields elsewhere in the North sea will apply to licences issued in the 11th round and subsequently.
The Bill's second purpose, to which I referred earlier, is to enable the United Kingdom to implement the agreement negotiated recently with the Irish Republic on the delimitation of the continental shelf. That is dealt with in clause 3. The agreement resolves an issue which has been outstanding for 25 years. Agreeing boundaries will open up new opportunities for the oil and supply industries if exploration in the areas should prove successful. I hope that all hon. Members will agree that that represents an important step forward. As the House will be aware, copies of the agreement have been available in the Library since 8 November, when my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary informed the House that he had signed the agreement.
I want to explain a little more about the agreement. At present, we have powers to designate areas for offshore activity on our continental shelf, but we do not have powers to de-designate, and those are what the Bill is taking. When I was first told that, I must admit that it did not mean very much to me, and I suspect that it does not mean all that much to my hon. Friends or to Opposition Members. Let me try to make it a little clearer. There are areas off the west coast of Scotland which in the past have been claimed by both sides. After considerable negotiation, it has been agreed that the Republic of Ireland should give up some of its claim and so should we. However, we cannot give effect to that, because we do not have the necessary powers. That is the purpose of this small clause: it covers that agreement and that agreement alone. I assure the House that it would not permit the Government to do anything similar elsewhere. As the House will see, the Bill refers specifically to the agreement signed in Dublin on 7 November—no more and no less.
Some hon. Members may believe that the territory of Northern Ireland is being given up as part of the agreement. I give a categorical assurance that that is not so. The line in the north-west starts at latitude 55·28 north and longitude 6·45 west. That is well to the west of any conceivable boundary between the continental shelf of Northern Ireland and that of the Irish Republic.
In July this year, I invited applications for further offshore licences in the 11th round. Two hundred and twelve blocks are on offer, which makes it the biggest

round for many years. One may ask why we have done this when the industry is facing such severe problems due to the low oil price. The answer is simply that there is an underlying buoyancy in the industry's outlook. The licences we are offering now will be the basis for the oil production that we need in the 21st century. No one in the industry doubts that there is a long-term future. That is why there is enthusiasm in the industry for the 11th round. I detect that that enthusiasm is spread among all sections of the industry. Our proposals are geared to interest every type of company—majors and independents alike.
There are further reasons for expecting the round to be successful. First, we have included in the 11th round some blocks which have never before been licensed in areas which are known to be of widespread interest. Secondly, exploration techniques have shown remarkable advances in the past five to ten years. Oil companies can now home in on small accumulations of oil and gas which previously went unnoticed. Thirdly, I have already referred to the industry's adaptability and willingness to introduce new technologies. That augurs well for the future prosperity of the industry and puts it in a strong position to compete for the licences that we are offering.
I know that even now companies are working hard on the proposals that they are due to put to us on 7 or 8 February, and I look forward eagerly to receiving their proposals.
The Bill may appear to be a small one, and, taken alone, it certainly is, but it is part of a large and important segment of Great Britain. Measures such as this will be needed to maintain the right climate for development. Without them, the success of the North sea would never have been possible. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Frank Doran: First, I thank the Minister for his kind opening remarks. I hope only that the attendance in the debate has nothing to do with my debut on the Front Bench—perhaps hon. Members would rather read what I have to say than listen to it.
I also thank the Minister for his kind remarks about Aberdeen. I represent Aberdeen, South, and the city of Aberdeen, the Grampian region and north-east Scotland have made a very significant contribution to the success which Britain enjoys in its oil industry. Of course, we should not forget that other regions send their workers there. Many of the workers in the oil industry are migrant workers from Glasgow, Dundee—my home town—Tyneside and Teesside. Nor should we forget the contribution of the southern sector by the people in and around east Anglia. It is a national contribution to a national asset. I thank the Minister for his kind remarks.
The Bill is very specific in its intention, but, as the Minister has already pointed out, it provides us with a welcome opportunity to debate the offshore oil and gas industry. Such opportunities do not occur often. Next year we celebrate the 25th anniversary of operations in the North sea. As the Minister has said, those years have seen a tremendous leap forward in technology and the ability to exploit further and improve on our oil and gas reserves. The oil industry has made an enormous contribution to the wealth of the country, and all those involved in that tremendous achievement are to be congratulated.
Oil and gas are extremely important to the economy. We produce about 2·5 million barrels of oil and gas a day,


which is a tremendous boost to our balance of payments. We export 1 million barrels a day and save on imports to the tune of 1·5 million barrels a day. All in all, at current prices that is a benefit to the trade balance of £1 billion per month—a significant achievement on anyone's terms. It is a tragedy for the country that the positive input that we have enjoyed for a number of years is wasted on what Opposition Members regard as failed economic policies which rely more on dogma than economic reality.

Mr. Hunter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Doran: No, I shall not give way on that point.
We used to get much more benefit from North sea oil and gas. As the Minister said, the price of oil collapsed in 1986. It is interesting to examine the position since then, and what the collapse meant for our economic position.
According to the Brown Book the—Department's annual statistics on oil and gas development—in 1985 the GNP arising within the oil and gas sector was £15·1 billion. That is a huge amount of money. The provisional figures for 1987, reported in the 1988 edition of the Brown Book, was £8·2 billion—a huge reduction. Tax and royalty revenues have gone down from the 1984–85 figure of just over £12 billion to the 1987–88 provisional figure of £4·7 billion—a significant drop. That is a direct result of the massive drop in the oil price in 1986. Since then, the oil price has fluctuated between just under $10 a barrel and about $20 a barrel. Today, it is just over $14 a barrel. Early hopes that this week's OPEC agreement would result in a substantial increase in the oil price have not been borne out. For understandable reasons, the markets have been cautious on pricing.
Currently, there are two major preoccupations in the oil industry—price and safety. I shall return to the question of safety. In this country, price has been left purely to market forces. The market is particularly sensitive, and that has hit my area of north-east Scotland. The oil price rises or falls in response to a whole range of factors, the most important of which is the level of production. It is quite clear that there is gross over-production and that there is a glut of oil on the world market.
Far from the controlled production levels and price stability sought by the OPEC countries, which would be of tremendous benefit to those countries and to our own industry, there is an international free-for-all on the world oil market. That has led directly to a fall in income in the United Kingdom and in other countries and to a severe depression in activity in the United Kingdom sector of the continental shelf. Only in the past year has there been a real recovery in activity. There has been an improvement in investment, but it is very cautious investment, certainly not at the levels expected in 1984 and 1985.
Britain and its oil industry have a vested interest in price stability, which would allow planned investment programmes and more planned depletion rates of existing fields and the development of new ones. Yet the Government have chosen to take no part in influencing the oil price. They are prepared to rely on market forces alone, and in doing so they isolate themselves from international discussion. None of us can say what influence the Government would have had had they been prepared to do what the Norwegian Government have done—simply to talk to OPEC and try to reach some agreement on production. None of us can say that that would have added to price stability, given the other international factors, but some

sense needs to be brought into world oil markets, and the United Kingdom, as a major and influential producer, should be part of that process.
Of course, the price of oil and gas is not just the cost of getting it out of the ground or the cost per barrel. Overshadowing all North sea activity at the moment is the Piper Alpha tragedy. I thank the Minister for his comments and for his recognition of the severe and shocking effect of that disaster, particularly on the city of Aberdeen and the north-east of Scotland. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) will probably comment on the disaster later in the debate.
One hundred and sixty-seven men lost their lives in the Piper Alpha tragedy, which sent shock waves through the whole industry. Safety is now right at the top of the agenda. I never have a meeting with oil companies in which safety is not the major issue under discussion.
I commend the Secretary of State, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) commended the Minister, on the speed with which the Government reacted to the disaster. I know that, in the early hours of 7 July, the Minister immediately went to Aberdeen to be present at the command centre to lend whatever assistance he and his Department could offer. I commend them for the speed with which the judicial inquiry has been instructed. Hopefully, the inquiry under Lord Cullen will pinpoint the precise causes of the tragedy and make recommendations to prevent future occurrences.
It is important, however, that the Government do not shy away from making improvements in safety, where they are obviously required, now rather than waiting until Lord Cullen has reported. Parliamentary answers and the replies to the numerous letters that I have written to the Minister and to the Secretary of State suggest that to a certain extent they are hiding behind Lord Cullen and that everything is frozen until he has reported. We need, as emphatically as possible, to make the point that the biggest single contribution to safety in the North sea would be the establishment of a single, independent agency responsible for all safety matters. That was recommended by the Burgoyne committee in 1981, but despite the Secretary of State's public statements the Government have singularly failed to appoint that single agency.
There is still a multiplicity of agencies responsible for safety in the North sea. The petroleum engineering division, a section of the Department of Energy, is responsible for health and safety aspects, and the pipelines inspectorate is responsible for the integrity of pipelines. It is another section of the Department of Energy, but the two operate separately and distinctly, with quite different areas of responsibility.
There are approved certifying authorities—private companies are responsible for the integrity of platforms; the Department of Transport is responsible for fire-fighting and safety equipment and for supply boats; and the Civil Aviation Authority is responsible for helicopters. Where is the unity in that system? There is none. The Secretary of State was at pains to point out in his numerous interviews immediately following the Piper Alpha disaster that all of the recommendtions of the Burgoyne committee had been implemented, but that is not the case. The multiplicity of agencies is severely hampering the establishment of a proper safety system in the North sea.
In case hon. Members think that this is an academic argument about bureaucracies, I remind them of what was said in the technical report prepared by Mr. James Petrie of the Department of Energy. I commend him for the content of and the speed with which his report was produced. It confirms that the scale of death and destruction on the Piper Alpha platform was the result of ruptures in high-pressure gas pipelines. Burning gas was released on to the platform like a blowtorch, destroying everythind in its path. The integrity of the pipeline is the responsibility of the pipelines inspectorate, while the integrity of the platform is the responsibility of the certifying authority. No one has assumed responsibility for the interface between the pipeline and the platform, or, for example, considered what would be the effect of a breach of a pipeline.
That is not a novel thought. The Government are well aware of the problem, because the Burgoyne committee, way back in 1981, said in paragraph 5.64 of its report:
One of the 'grey' areas referred to above is the overlap in responsibility between the PED and the certifying authorities in respect of the pipeline riser and other pipeline equipment on the installation. Although forming an essential part of the pipeline system it clearly has a bearing on the integrity of the installation.
That was in 1981, and we know what happened on the Piper Alpha in 1988. That tragedy was a direct consequence of the failure to deal with that grey area.
The Department of Energy, through the Minister, has taken one positive step and announced a proces of consultation with the industry on fitting emergency shutdown valves. The failure to install such valves in Piper Alpha led to the scale of death and destruction. Will the Minister tell the House if and when he intends to introduce regulations to make the installation of emergency shutdown valves mandatory on all high-pressure gas and oil pipelines in the North sea? I recognise that there is not the same demand or need on low-pressure pipelines. Can he confirm that those regulations will be retrospective?
I want to deal with the southern sector and the relevant content in the Bill. As the Minister said, the package is intended to be tax-neutral. The first stage of the package was presented in the Budget and confirmed in the Finance Act earlier this year. Although the intention is to be tax-neutral, the Minister made it clear that some encouragement would be given to new development in the North sea, especially the smaller gasfields that have been identified but, at present, are considered uneconomic to develop.
That whole process was undertaken in the northern oilfields in 1983, and was vigorously opposed by the Opposition at the time. There are substantial differences between the two areas. The southern basin comprises mainly gasfields, which are cheaper to develop and have lower operating costs. We opposed the 1983 measures for good reasons that I believe still apply today. The first is the principle on which royalties are paid. Oil and gas in the United Kingdom are publicly owned, and have been since 1934. That public ownership is confirmed and emphasised by the payment of royalties.
Secondly, the Government already have sufficient powers to restrict the payment of royalties in appropriate cases. The powers are contained in existing legislation and are much more sensitive and sophisticated than the

proposed measure. They enable the Government to take a field-by-field approach, which is much more satisfactory than the system installed in the northern section in 1983 and now proposed for the southern basin. The blunderbuss approach will mean that some operators will benefit, but many will lose. The two biggest losers are likely to be Britoil, in respect of its Amethyst field, and Conoco.
There is another, more worrying aspect about the Government's general approach, and it was not mentioned by the Minister. British Gas is a monopoly purchaser in the southern basin—it is a monopoly. It can virtually dictate its terms and it negotiates field by field. At the time of the Budget debate, a number of analysts commented on that. The "FT North Sea Letter" of March 1988 stated:
On this front, both Capel and Woodmac raise the possibility of BG using the improved economics on some new projects to force the price it offers down further, thus taking the benefit itself. Woodmac calculates that a 1p/therm cut could now be made on Anglia without affecting its rate of return. Capel suggests BG could cut the Ravenspurn North price by 0·9p, Barque/Clipper by 0·5p and Welland by 0·1p to leave sellers with the same pre-Budget economics.
Even with those advantages over the northern sector, development costs are still very high in the southern sector. No operator will become involved in development costs until he has a contract signed, sealed and delivered by British Gas. The whole pace of development in the southern sector is therefore dictated by British Gas and its willingness to negotiate. Of course, British Gas is now a private company. No company can afford—

Mr. Hunter: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that it is Labour party policy not to remove royalties from the northern and southern sectors? In Committee on the Finance Bill, the Labour party argued for an even lower level of oil production. Are we to understand that Labour party policy is now to increase significantly the taxation burden on the oil industry?

Mr. Doran: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood what I said. Had he taken the trouble to read the report of the Finance Bill Committee, he would know the Labour party's position. At the time of the Finance Bill debates, the Labour party accepted some of the points made by the oil industry. In the original draft of the Bill, the Government had proposed a petroleum relief of 100,000 barrels, the oil industry argued for 160,000 and the Labour party tabled an amendment for 150,000. The Government compromised at 125,000 barrels, which we regarded as unsatisfactory. At that time, we also accepted that it was appropriate to remove the royalties as part of the package. However, we stand on the principle that the royalties are an expression and a confirmation of ownership of oil in the ground, and that is still the legal position. There is no question of supporting any increase in the level of taxation. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman.
The whole pace of development in the southern sector is dictated by British Gas, which is now, of course, a private company. Will the Minister tell the House what steps, if any, he proposes to take, first of all, to ensure that any fiscal benefits which accrued to the operator because of the measure now before us will be diverted to development and not simply negotiated into the pockets of British Gas? Secondly, is the Minister content to leave the pace of the development of the southern basin to a single monopoly private company, and, if so, in what way would the public interest be protected?
The second part of the Bill relates to an agreement between ourselves and the Irish Government. It must be put on the record—especially this week, when all the other debates about our relations with the Irish Government have been so difficult and fraught that it is a pleasure to see that we can actually agree on something. Given the Prime Minister's statement yesterday, which today has been shown to be fairly ill-advised and misjudged, is the Minister satisfied that the agreement that was drawn up, presumably by those legal advisers to the Foreign Office, is safely signed, sealed and locked up in a safe of the Foreign Office, and now inviolable?

Mr. John Hannam: The Bill is not highly controversial, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) stated, and it should not place us in an adversarial position. However, it gives us the opportunity to discuss a vital and successful oil and gas industry. As we drive our cars, switch on our gas heaters or even purchase various manufactured items, which are derived from oil-based feedstock and from fossil reserves and resources which must be drawn from those reservoirs many thousands of feet below the surface of the earth, we often forget the hazardous human involvement until there is an occurrence, such as the recent Piper Alpha disaster.
If we study the fuel split in United Kingdom energy demand, we find that coal produces 13 per cent., electricity 14 per cent., gas 33 per cent. and oil 40 per cent. The domestic sector consumes only 30 per cent. of those resources, and the remainder is consumed by commerce, industry and transport. That is why it is vital to ensure that we get the pricing system right. If we look back at the late 1970s—during the period of the Labour Government—we find that the balance certainly was not right, because the domestic consumer of gas was being heavily subsidised by the industrial user. Recently British Gas has been called to account by Ofgas for leaning too heavily on the industrial consumer. 1 welcome the strong stand being taken by Ofgas and by James McKinnon, and I welcome, too, his determination to effect more control over this huge monopoly supplier.
It is in the context of our need to encourage further exploration and development of our oil and gas reserves that we should consider the Bill, which removes the royalties system for post-1982 oil and gas fields in the southern basin of the North sea. That abolition follows from the Finance Act 1983, when royalties in the northern and central North sea were abolished for future fields. At that time we were facing a downturn in activity in the offshore sector, so, in addition to the abolition of royalties in the northern and central sectors, the oil allowance from petroleum revenue tax was doubled to 500,000 tonnes. That produced a welcome increase in exploration and development. It was an act of faith on the part of the Government, and the results confirmed what those of us involved in energy matters had been pressing on the Treasury for some time before—that a tax regime cannot just be installed and then left indefinitely in the hope that, despite all the other factors, it will produce the desired result. In fact, we must have constant adjustments—which are especially necessary during a period of world instability in oil prices—if the free-enterprise companies are to be given incentives to make the huge investments which are inherent in exploration and development.
We must ask ourselves whether this year's reduction in the oil allowance—the question posed by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South—front 250,000 tonnes per chargeable period to 125,000 tonnes will truly balance out with the abolition of royalties and that we will have what the Treasury said would be a neutrally fiscal solution.
The original Budget proposal for an allowance of 100,000 tonnes for the southern basin would have had a deterrent effect. I believe that it was too low. The southern basin oil allowance would have been only one fifth of the level applied to new oil fields elsewhere and would have increased, rather than eliminated, the discrimination against the southern gas fields. I was, therefore, pleased when the Government upgraded the allowance to 125,000 tonnes, which I believe was the minimum figure.
Important oil companies, such as Conoco, have evaluated their positions. They are worried, and convinced, that they will lose about half of their post-1982 and future oil field valuations, because of the loss of the tax allowance. The problem in the oil industry is that every company has a different parameter within which to evaluate such matters, because of the nature of oil fields. However, we shall see the result. I stress how important it is for my right hon. Friend to monitor carefully the effects of any such changes on the level of activity and, if necessary—on behalf of this important industrial sector—to press the Treasury if and when the occasion arises.
We are fortunate to have these oil and gas reserves. As technology improves, the extent of the recoverable reserves will increase. We can now confidently expect to be self-sufficient in oil well into the 1990s—far beyond our expectations of a decade ago. In fact, since 1979 the estimates of initially recoverable reserves have risen by 13 per cent. The impact of that incredibly successful private enterprise industry on our economy is enormous—2·25 per cent. of our GDP in 1987, which is more than £4 billion in revenue from taxes and royalties, 85,000 jobs a year, and our United Kingdom offshore and onshore oil industry is winning a record 87 per cent. of the £2 billion orders for the North sea. Next year will signal the 25th year of this great endeavour in the North sea. We should congratulate all those who have made it possible.
At the same time, however, we must recognise the dangers inherent in a tough industrial environment; and, with the tragic Piper Alpha incident still fresh in our minds, it is right that Parliament should take every possible step to ensure that proper protection is given to those working in those hazardous conditions.
I would not want to prejudge the public inquiry, but I do not believe that the changes that the oil industry has been implementing in recent years have generally borne down on the safety standards on the rigs. It could not possibly be in the interests of a rig operator or an oil company to take short-cuts in safety. The huge losses of production that would result from an accident or a close-down would far outweigh the kind of cost reductions from such short-cuts. Safety and profitability inevitably go hand in hand, with safety always a step in front. That is the declared attitude in the oil industry, which I believe must generally be true. Nevertheless, the Piper Alpha disaster, on one of the oldest rigs in the North sea, requires the closest re-examination of training, safety procedures and equipment used on our rigs. The confidence of the work force and of the public must be fully restored by visible signs of the safest regime possible. I know that my right


hon. Friend accepts the Government's role in ensuring that the most rigorous statutory system of safety standards is effected.
Some 12 years ago my wife came back from having her hair done—that oftens happens—and told me that her hairdresser's husband was a scientific journalist who was considering the effects on metal oil rigs of prolonged immersion in sea water. Because I had an interest in energy, she asked me if I would meet him to have a chat. He produced a lot of evidence that he had collated. He was worried about some of the forecasts made to him privately by scientists suggesting that some oil rigs would collapse much earlier than expected. At that time, I tabled some questions to the then Secretary of State for Energy and wrote to and met various oil company chairmen, board members and scientists. At the end of my inquiries I was reasonably satisfied that those worries had been appreciated by all involved.
However, with the recent disasters on some oil rigs I thought back to that journalist's queries. I would like my right hon. Friend to reassure me that safety is still a priority and that we are unlikely to face the unexpected collapse of rigs because of the chemical effects of sea submersion upon the steel supports.
I saw a report in The Scotsman recently of comments made by Mr. Allan Millar, the general secretary of the Association of British Professional Divers, who said that he and other divers had expected the Piper Alpha platform to be one of the first to go. I do not think that he was forecasting the collapse and disaster that occurred, but he and other divers knew that the structure was becoming outdated and antiquated. He said that it was held together by clamps which had been installed after cracks appeared on nodes—the part of a rig's leg where various members are joined together. It is obvious that the fears expressed to me a long time ago about the long-term strength of rigs still remain. Therefore, we must consider carefully the strength and viability of the older rigs and ensure that we have a system to effect the necessary checks to prevent disasters.
We cannot eliminate the risks in North sea oil operations altogether. However, given the proper safety training, full use of new technology, a strict statutory regime, full equipment checks and a responsible approach by the operators, I am confident that the overall downward trend in accidents and injuries will continue. With the welcome agreement on compensation that has now been reached, the tragic Piper Alpha accident may result in a safer industry, which is vital to us all.
As we are discussing the oil industry, it is worth mentioning the major issue of the decommissioning or dismantling of our installations and pipelines. Since 1967, 150 fixed platforms and 3,000 miles of major sub-sea pipeline have been installed in the North sea, and obviously their abandonment will present a major financial and physical problem in years to come.
Crucial decisions on tax regulations, environmental protection and forms of dismantling are still to be made. One thing is clear, however: the cost will be enormous. The figure of £3 billion has been bandied about. That is higher than our nuclear decommissioning costs for the same period.
Some years ago in a similar debate in the House the idea was floated that some rigs could be towed offshore and turned into holiday hotels. I suspect that that idea is no longer even remotely tenable, but no doubt there will be other ingenious ideas for the re-use of the rigs. Perhaps The House Magazine might like to test Members' ingenuity with a competition for ideas. Their future use will be an important aspect of our deliberations. Because of the vast number of rigs and pipelines, and the hazards that they present, we must concentrate our minds on how best and to what extent we require the dismantling of rigs.
I welcome this small but important measure and hope that the House will give it a fair wind this evening.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: It has aleady been said that next year will be the 25th year of North sea activity. I was not in at the beginning, but I have had contacts with the industry for 17 of its 24 years. I have seen it go through price hikes and collapses, peaks of profitability and economic squeezes. I recall the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) visiting my office shortly after he lost the October 1974 election. He was somewhat startled to be told that he had left his concern for and interest in the North sea a few months too late and that, had he paid greater attention to what was going on a little earlier, he might not have lost the election.
It is true that, at that time, the knowledge and detailed hold of the Government on the North sea was not as it should have been. That must be true, as they even resorted to using me as a source of information when answering parliamentary questions.

Mr. Robert Hughes: That was unwise.

Mr. Bruce: That might be so, but I knew more than the Government, although our sum knowledge might not have amounted to much.
In the 1970s, I always supported the case for a flexible taxation regime that took proper account of price changes, the real rates of return and the variations from field to field. When the North sea was being developed, when the real rush was on, the OPEC cartel became strong and it was rightly argued that the super-normal profits that that cartel would create for those producing oil and gas should accrue to the nation rather than the oil and gas companies. It was right that the regime then established ensured that the super-normal profits were effectively creamed off for the Exchequer. Now that oil prices are relatively depressed and there is a shortage of orders for the fabrication yards in some parts of the north of Scotland, the converse is true.
The pressure on the margins is acute, although companies have shown considerable ingenuity in cutting costs. It is appropriate, however, to ensure that tax regime changes take account of the significantly changing circumstances so that we do not have a severe front-end deterrent on oil companies, which would depress exploration and development activities. That would have been the case if the recent changes made by the Government, which I fully supported, had not been introduced. The Bill is the last element of those changes.
My view is not incompatible with that expressed by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran)—that there has been a period of over-production in the North sea. It is a matter of judgment—and only judgment—that oil sold today at £11 or £12 is, by definition, not available


to be sold or used at a later date when the price in real terms might be higher or lower. Of course, the resource cannot be used twice.
I have always believed that oil and gas reserves are a strategic asset that belong to the nation and not to the oil companies. The extraction process should be geared to meet national and strategic requirements. To do that, we must ensure that there are optimum levels of development and exploration and that we know what is available. We need to ensure, as has been crudely suggested, that the plumbing is in first. If we are to impose a regulation on production, we must do it when the taps are installed. I support the Government's measures. We need to ensure that the maximum encouragement, exploration and development of associated and marginal fields takes place. I know that the Government do not agree, but if there is to be any restraint on production, it ought to be directed at larger fields, and only after all capital write-offs and uplifts have been secured by the operators so that they receive a full return on their investment.
We should be encouraging research and development into reducing the costs of oil development and recovery. Those of us closely connected with the industry are impressed by the way in which oil companies and related contracting engineers have found ways of reducing costs by using their imagination and a variety of different techniques and developing technologies.
In relating commercial factors to safety, one enters a sensitive area, but one must inevitably do so—the Minister was right to address it. Fourteen of my constituents were killed in the Piper Alpha disaster. The inquiry will take place in my constituency, which is also the location of Occidental's North sea operational headquarters—so the disaster had a definite and traumatic impact on people in my area. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South pointed out, looking through the casualty list, one finds just how wide is the distribution of the victims' addresses, showing that the industry is truly national and draws its work force from all over the United Kingdom. It should be fully understood that Piper Alpha was not just a local tragedy.
There are one or two areas of concern that should properly be explored in the public inquiry. However, the Minister knows that I have made it clear that he has responsibilities aside from the inquiry, and that I shall continue pressing him directly on those other matters. The hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) alluded to the particular problem of Piper Alpha and other older platforms. It worries me that it was possible to install process modules under a platform's accommodation section, and how that came to happen has not yet been satisfactorily explained. We still need to know how that came about.
Ministers know that I strongly support the case for an independent safety inspectorate. More power and resources will be needed to carry out inspections and to lay down standards. Those who work offshore, and their dependants, deserve to be satisfied and to have their concerns allayed. I feel sure that hon. Members representing Aberdeen constituencies and others will all have received many letters from those working offshore—many of them written anonymously. Normally, I discount anonymous letters but it is a matter of real concern that such people are unwilling to identify

themselves. The Minister knows we must reassure them that action is being taken on offshore inspection and control.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South mentioned helicopter safety. It is a separate matter, in the sense that the Minister, when replying, can legitimately argue that it is not his departmental responsibility. However, as the Minister responsible for oil and gas, and as someone who uses helicopters when visiting platforms, he surely accepts that they are an essential component—the lifeline and main transport vehicles for North sea personnel. Statistically, the record of North sea helicopter operations is good, but that is not to deny that there have been one or two major catastrophes or that many more alarming incidents have often been averted only by the pilots' skill and experience. There was one such incident only a couple of weeks ago.
I accept that the CAA has made several changes over a number of years, but it takes too long to review accidents and to make recommendations, partly because the CAA lacks competence and authority in dealing with helicopter operations. I partly draw that as a parallel with the reason why we need a stronger and more independent offshore inspectorate. Not enough expertise and personnel are available to deal with inspections. Also, there are costs involved in safety, which inevitably creates tension.
The hon. Member for Exeter rightly said that no operator willingly cuts corners, because the cost of a catastrophe such as Piper Alpha far outweighs any possible saving. That is true, but judgment must still be exercised, particularly at a time when profit margins are tight. Appropriate safety measures are a matter of judgment, and where costs are involved, they are another factor to be considered, according to how seriously one weighs the safety benefit that will accrue. That is why as the Minister will surely acknowledge, we need an offshore safety inspectorate able to make decisions free of commercial pressure.
In circumstances where one is dealing with a marginal field, and where costs are crucial, corners may not be cut but measures that, on balance, should be taken might not be because they might tip the field over the balance of viability. That is an extreme example, but it illustrates my point that commercial factors cannot be wholly ignored.
Given that the Government have been flexible and responsive in meeting the industry's commercial needs, it is reasonable to maintain independent pressure on the industry to ensure the highest safety standards.

Mr. Hunter: On the hon. Gentleman's remark that companies might cut corners, is that speculation or does he know, from his far greater knowledge of North sea exploration than I have, that companies are doing so?

Mr. Bruce: That is a fair question. Other hon. Members may share my experience that people working offshore believe it to be the case and could quote chapter and verse. The problem is that they are not willing to testify against the companies for which they work, and those who have left risk being accused of having an axe to grind. The answer is that specific cases are quoted, but I am not in a position to judge their validity. However, I am entitled to say that concern exists and that we should take account of it.
It is that which convinces me that the inspectorate should be independent of the Department of Energy. Both


the Secretary of State and the Minister of State have on occasion rebutted robustly, and with some chagrin, the implication that their inspectors are in some way compromised. I am sure that they are sincere, but Ministers must understand that they also are part of the commercial calculation, or are perceived to be so. That is because, first, the Government's revenue is affected by costs, profitability, and the ultimate level of taxation; secondly, their balance of trade figures are affected by production levels. I do not quarrel with the Minister's sincerity in commenting on his own Department, but it is a matter not just of justice being seen to be done and of independence being assured, but of the inspectorate being operated in such a way that it cannot be questioned and is recognised as something apart—in which those having any commercial interest are not directly involved.
The nuclear industry, where levels of concern about safety are much higher, has a shortfall of nuclear inspectors. If, despite pressure being applied, the nuclear industry has been left with a shortfall, is it not arguable that the oil industry has been left with one greater than it needs to be?
The hon. Members for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) and for Exeter also mentioned the toppling of Piper Alpha. The concern surrounding that disaster arises not least because not all the victims' bodies have been recovered. Here we enter the realm of personal distress, particularly since most bodies have been recovered. For many people, it is a psychological necessity that the body be returned and that there be a proper funeral so that, although tragedy has struck, at least it may be given a proper and final ending. For those who have not been given that opportunity, there is continuing, open-ended distress. The House will recognise that for those individuals the suggestion that the platform's remnants may be destroyed without the remaining bodies being recovered is unacceptable. The Minister said that he would comment on that, and I look forward to hearing what he has to say.
I served on the Standing Committee considering the preliminary enabling Bill that dealt with the abandoning of offshore platforms. We had many ingenious and rather light-hearted discussions about the possible options, but a general feeling emerged that the toppling of such installations although relatively cheap—was not an acceptable final solution. First, we need an assurance that any action on Piper Alpha will not establish a precedent for any other field disposal.

Mr. Peter Morrison: I am sorry to interrupt—I have been trying not to do so—but I can give a categorical assurance that that is so.

Mr. Bruce: That is a helpful and welcome assurance.
There is some concern that the offshore industry may be dealt with differently from other industries in which it is in close competition. It is widely reported that the Electricity Bill, which was presented to the House today and will be published tomorrow, will contain a pretty open-ended taxpayers' indemnity of the nuclear industry for the decommissioning of nuclear power stations, the cost of which is estimated at £3 billion. That is comparable with the estimate of the cost of disposal of North sea platforms.
It would be unfair if oil and gas companies and their customers were forced to absorb their costs with no

assistance, while the privatised nuclear power operators' costs were contributed in full by the taxpayer. It would also be unfair to fishermen and other seafarers if the cheaper option of toppling platforms were pursued on the ground that the oil and gas industries were not being treated as generously as other industries and could not afford to absorb their costs. Debate on that will continue, but I wish to put down a marker now: many of us are not at all happy about the balance.
Like others who have spoken, I am happy to support the Bill's relatively limited objectives. It is, as the Minister has said, part of a package, not all of which I agree with but which should ensure the continuation of a viable offshore oil and gas industry. I should, however, like to pick up two of the Minister's comments about onshore exploration.
I agree that the industry has a good record on environmental restoration, and has been able to harmonise its activities effectively. Nevertheless, at a time of North sea over-production, it is surely inappropriate to press for developments in areas of dense population where there is pressure on amenities. Local authorities, particularly in the south of England, are understandably sensitive to that.
We have yet to observe the final results, but we hope that the change will be fiscally neutral, which would help the continuing development of gasfields in the North sea. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) commented on the monopoly position of British Gas. I wonder whether the measure will have any effect on that company's wish to import gas from elsewhere. Does the Minister think that it will enable sufficient gas to be provided to meet our requirements for the foreseeable future? Personally, I doubt it.
This is a modest but sensible step, which tidies up matters. I think that we all agree that the future of the North sea industry is much greater than its past, and that, in spite of its difficulties, the industry will employ many people, using ingenuity and technology, for a long time to come. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are anxious to ensure that the industry continues to thrive.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: As the past few years have shown, the theme of North sea oil and gas production and exploration has not set the scene for major confrontation between the two sides of the House; and I do not intend to inject a note of confrontation tonight. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) for clarifying his party's concept of the ideal fiscal framework in which the industry should operate. I now understand that the party welcomes the withdrawal of royalties, but seeks a tax allowance of 150,000 tonnes per chargeable period.
I readily confess that I have come to the debate unprepared, because I thought that we had already had it. Those of us who sat through the 100 or so hours of the Committee stage of the Finance Bill were under the impression that all this was behind us, and I find myself enveloped by a sense of political déjà vu. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), who has just left the Chamber for an important engagement, would share both my hope that the debate will be short and my belief that it has already been well covered in Committee.
I think that the industry will say of the Bill, "About time too." As long ago as 1983, when royalties were removed from the northern and central fields, the industry said that the same should apply to the southern fields. The withdrawal of royalties from the northern and central fields was accompanied, under the Finance Act 1983, by a doubling of the oil allowance from 250,000 tonnes per chargeable period to 500,000. This Bill reduces the allowance. The Government accepted in 1983 that oil revenue could and should be reduced to further and promote exploration and investment. In my view, the financial and economic climate of 1983 was rather different from that of 1988, although Opposition Members may argue differently: the economy was less robust than it is now. But the Government were prepared to decrease North sea oil revenue, whereas in these healthier days they are making other demands.
That fount of all wisdom, Conservative central office, has reminded Conservative Members of the political perception for which my right hon. Friend the Minister is so renowned, and has drawn our attention to his departmental press release of 15 March, which stated:
It had become clear to the Government, in the light of our discussions with the industry, that the Southern Basin fiscal regime was becoming insensitive to the economic realities of more recent fields and could be an obstacle to the development of worthwhile projects. The incidence of royalty, a non-profit-related levy, was the most serious impediment.
I entirely accept that basic proposition.
We should bear in mind the principle, or maxim, that what is good for the United Kingdom offshore industry is good for the United Kingdom, and what is best for that industry is best for the United Kingdom. The objective of our policies must be to prolong the self-sufficiency of the North sea into the late 1990s—and, we hope, beyond—and to increase the estimates of resources that are economically recoverable.
My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) drew attention to some of the basic statistics of the North sea industry: that oil contributes 2·25 per cent. to our gross domestic product and provides the Government with revenue in excess of £4 billion—very approximately the equivalent of 4p on the standard rate of income tax. The number of people who are directly employed in the industry was also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter, as well as, if I remember correctly, by the hon. Member for Gordon—about 85,000. The oil industry has enormous repercussions on employment throughout the country and provides tremendous spin-offs. A recent manpower studies paper suggested that well over 500,000 jobs depend on the North sea oil and gas industry.
Last year, 132 offshore explorations and appraisals were started, besides 38 onshore appraisals. About eight wells are producing oil on shore. The second largest of those wells is partly in my constituency. Humbley Grove oil production straddles the parliamentary constituencies of Basingstoke, Winchester and Hampshire, East. We must not under-estimate the importance of the industry. We need to create the fiscal climate within which it will flourish.
There is one matter about which I begin to quarrel with the Government. The purpose behind the package, part of which was introduced in the Finance Act and part of which we have here, is to establish fiscal neutrality. My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury is on record as saying:
we wanted to set the petroleum revenue tax oil allowance at a level that would leave the overall tax take unchanged over the life of the field affected".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 16 June 1988; c. 512.]
Questions need to be asked about fiscal neutrality. First, has it been achieved? Secondly, is it necessary to achieve it? Thirdly—this is my own proposition—would it not be far better not to achieve it? As to whether fiscal neutrality is maintained by the Finance Act and this Bill, the industry is adamant that it is not. It persists in saying that the oil allowance should be 160,000 tonnes per chargeable unit. If that is not the allowance, operations that are marginally viable will no longer be viable. The industry says that the Treasury and the Department of Energy have got it wrong—that it should be 160,000 tonnes, not 125,000 tonnes.
As to whether fiscal neutrality has been achieved, there may well be a strong argument that it has not been. The next question is whether it is necessary to achieve fiscal neutrality. I am a staunch supporter of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I applaud all that he has achieved. We are told that last year there was a surplus of revenue over expenditure of £3·6 billion and that this year there is likely to be a surplus of revenue over expenditure of between £10 billion and £12 billion. If there is such a surplus of revenue over expenditure, and if North sea oil and gas are so important to us—as they are—we do not need to maintain fiscal neutrality. We can look for a genuine lowering of the tax burden on that vital part of our national economy.
My right hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Morrison) and other hon. Members have acknowledged that the debate has provided an opportunity for wide discussion of North sea matters. I do not propose to repeat what has already been well expressed. Of course the priority is safety. We are totally united about that, and I echo the sentiments that have already been expressed. No hon. Member could take part in the debate without recalling the Piper Alpha incident and wishing to be identified with the sympathy that has been offered to those who suffered injury and to those families who suffered bereavement. I identify myself with those expressions of sympathy.
I hope that there will be a clear and unequivocal assurance that everything possible will be done in what remains a hazardous enterprise to ensure the maximum level of safety. The hon. Member for Gordon referred to the fact that North sea exploration began 25 years ago. We must acknowledge that achievement. It was pioneering work of the first order. Technological advances of that kind deserve the highest praise. They have been of the utmost benefit to our economy. A debate of this nature is an appropriate occasion to recall those achievements.
The hon. Member for Gordon and I were involved in the 1987 Standing Committee proceedings on the Petroleum Bill. On that occasion, we had to consider the abandonment of oilfields, which is becoming an even greater reality; the days of abandonment are drawing nearer. There was some objective, non-political controversy in the Standing Committee proceedings. I should like my right hon. Friend the Minister to take this opportunity to assure us again that he is convinced that the Government have sufficient powers to control the abandonment of platforms and pipelines.
The abolition of royalties is to be welcomed. It will enable marginal fields to remain economically viable. It is


absolutely right that tax should be paid on profits rather than on production. I confess to having profound doubts about whether fiscal neutrality has been achieved. Heretic though it may make me, I happen to believe that we need not even seek fiscal neutrality.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I have privately as well as publicly congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) on his elevation to the Opposition Front Bench, but I want to take this first opportunity in the House to repeat my warm congratulations to him, especially on his debut, and to wish him much success in the future as an Opposition spokesperson and, I hope, as the years go by, as a Minister.
I have been involved, mainly as a Front-Bench representative, with two of the three major disasters of recent times: first, the Herald of Free Enterprise at Zeebrugge; secondly, the King's Cross fire disaster; and, thirdly, when I was involved as a constituency MP, the Piper Alpha disaster. In a strange kind of way—I take no comfort from this—we marvel that in all three major accidents more lives were not lost. The Herald of Free Enterprise keeled over 100 yd from shore. Everybody on board that ship could have been lost. Many more people could have been lost in the King's Cross disaster. Those who saw the dramatic photographs in the technical report that was published by the Department or who saw, admittedly from afar, the battered remains of the Piper Alpha platform cannot understand how anybody survived. It is a miracle that more people did not die, but we cannot take any comfort from that.
With all three incidents, there is a strong feeling that commerce and competition came before safety. With the Herald of Free Enterprise, there is no doubt that the drive of competition and to maximise profit led to quicker turn-rounds and sloppiness with regard to safety.
As for King's Cross, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind—I think that the Fennell report bears it out—that those who were in charge of London Underground were far more concerned with cash and cutting public subsidy than with safety. Again, sloppiness crept in. The day after the fire, I saw underneath the escalator. I was told that, on that one wooden escalator, there had already been 12 fires which had gone out without causing major loss of life. I incline towards the view that there is a correlation in the North sea between price stability and attention to safety. Everybody denies that. In discussions with the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association—other hon. Members have had similar discussions—and when we visited the Tartan Alpha platform, everybody assured us that safety was always paramount. If it were not true in the past, Piper Alpha has concentrated everybody's mind. I have no doubt that the issue has been considered afresh.
All of us who have been involved have been flooded with letters and inundated by people coming to see us to tell us about breaches of safety legislation and practice. They tell us that they felt that they were being driven to get on with their job because nobody wanted the platform to shut down. It is difficult to know how to judge hearsay evidence. I normally tell people who come to see me and those who give me their names and addresses to make their

evidence public. I tell them to make it available to the Lord Cullen inquiry. Everybody owes it to the living and to the dead to ensure that no aspect of safety is overlooked.
I understand that Lord Cullen cannot look into every allegation and every possible aspect of safety in the North sea, nor would we want him to do so. We want a thorough examination, but we want fairly speedy conclusions. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what will happen at the end of the inquiry. What immunities have been given to the participants in the inquiry? To get the evidence at the Zeebrugge inquiry, a blanket immunity from prosecution was given to anybody who took part. Some qualified immunities have been given in regard to the Piper Alpha inquiry. I am not seeking vengeance any more than anyone else, but if clear knowledge of breaches of safety legislation emerges, the people concerned ought to be prosecuted further. I hope that, whatever qualified immunities might have been given, there is no blanket immunity from prosecution.
None of us wants to prejudge the outcome of the Cullen inquiry. I have already said publicly, and repeated it in the House, that I believe that Lord Cullen has begun his inquiry in a way which leads me to have confidence that we shall get a fair and reasonable result.
There is controversy about the independence of the safety inspectors. I have some doubt whether an independent safety commission would be as beneficial as is sometimes suggested. There is an incestuous relationship between the industry and the Department. It is neither here nor there whether that relationship is real or apparent; there is a close relationship, and people feel that it has got a bit too cosy and that perhaps the commission should be one step removed.
I know that some hon. Members feel very strongly about this issue, but my hesitation on the subject arises out of the fact that the commission cannot be entirely independent of the Government. Moreover, I do not believe that the Government's safety record is very good. I would not dare to cast aspersions on the Secretary of State or the Minister of State. I have already said that they have conducted themselves well since the Piper Alpha inquiry started, but some Ministers have departed and some may yet come in whose judgment I would not necessarily trust. We must approach the subject of independence carefully and seek an assurance, yet again, that the safety inspectors have the greatest possible independence.
I do not know why the oil industry is so hesitant. When the Opposition have demanded more trade union involvement in safety and organisation on the rigs, some people have thought that we are pursuing our natural political and industrial inclination to favour the trade unions. I am a Member sponsored by the Amalgamated Engineering Union. That union recruits members from among those working in the North sea, so people would expect me to say that we want strong trade union organisation, but it is not simply a matter of having trade union organisation because we have a vested interest in it.
I believe fervently that active trade unionists in any industry are concerned for members and colleagues, irrespective of whether their workmates are members of a trade union. I cannot understand why the oil industry has resisted proper trade union membership. The vast majority of the majors who operate in the North sea have onshore, downstream activities where for many years they have happily accommodated union safety representatives and


even closed shops. Why can they not allow the same in the North sea? They say that they are perfectly happy to allow organisation. It cannot be contradicted, however, that when a trade union organiser applies to go to a platform his application is welcomed but it just happens that a place on a helicopter cannot be found for another six months.
It might be asked why organisers do not organise the lads when they come on shore. Having been offshore for a fortnight. men want to get home to their wives and families; they do not want to hang about at trade union meetings. It is entirely understandable that they want to get the first aeroplane south—because this is not a wholly Aberdeen-based industry.
When there has been some organisation, because half a dozen good trade unionists have got together, it is well documented that when they come up for their next tour of duty they are put on different ships or different platforms. The cohesion which has begun to be built up is therefore broken. Why is the oil industry not prepared to allow proper trade union organisation? I believe that such organisation is important.
I do not know how many other hon. Members wish to speak, but I apologise to the Minister as I may not be able to be present to hear his reply. It is not entirely satisfactory that he should deal with the debris of the platform in his winding-up speech because we do not know what he will say. That is a minor carp. I know that the Minister of State is hoping that I shall hurry up and finish.

Mr. Peter Morrison: I am keen to help the hon. Gentleman. However, I wanted first to be 100 per cent. sure that I should in no sense mislead the House. I have now discovered that I should not be misleading the House, so I shall tell the hon. Gentleman precisely what the position is.
It was only last night that a proposition was put in my box relating to the abandonment of Piper Alpha, which I approved. It is obviously a matter of great importance. The proposition then went to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. This morning, my right hon. Friend also approved that proposition. For the sake of accuracy, it may be helpful for me to spell out precisely what the proposition is.
Under section 4 of the Petroleum Act 1987, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has approved the abandonment programme for Piper Alpha, submitted by Occidental and its co-venturers. This proposes the use of explosive charges to topple the remains of the installation and to put them on to the sea bed, away from the existing pile of debris, leaving at least 75m of clear water above all remains.
The approval is not final. The proposed conditions to be attached to my right hon. Friend's approval include requirements for surveys of the toppled remains and surrounding sea bed to establish the position of debris and to monitor for leakage of oil and gas. They also require sediment samples to be obtained and examined for the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls and radioactivity. The conditions provide for repetition of these surveys and of sediment sampling at such times as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may subsequently direct. They also provide for debris to be moved, or removed, as my right hon. Friend may direct; for any leakage of oil or gas to be sealed to his satisfaction; and for steps to be taken to deal with any unacceptable levels of pollution.
All those proposals are subject to approval, and the operating company will have the opportunity to raise objections under the statute. The proposals have not yet been conveyed to anyone other than hon. Members in the House today, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, myself and one or two officials. I hope that that has been helpful.

Mr. Hughes: The Minister has been very helpful. If I made any charge of discourtesy in my speech, I acquit him of it.
There were two points with which the Minister did not deal. The first point concerns the bodies. I come from a seafaring family of generations back and I know from experience—although none of my family has been lost at sea—how seafaring families find it difficult to come to terms with death if no body is found. After the Zeebrugge and the Piper Alpha disasters, the relatives of those who died found it difficult to come to terms with the deaths. If the Piper Alpha platform is toppled, perhaps there will be a further search for bodies around the platform.
The other matter about which I am anxious is that the evidence that may be available about corrosion will be difficult to obtain. I said earlier that I did not expect Lord Cullen to go into every aspect of safety in the North sea, but I believe that corrosion is extremely important in relation to safety. The hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) mentioned corrosion and safety. As the Minister has made a final decision about the platform, I hope that he will assure us that there will be ample opportunity to study corrosion.
I believe that the oil industry is under an obligation to carry out a proper restitution of the immediate area of its operations in the North sea after abandonment. It should not have been allowed to say that it was starting a great programme, providing wealth for the nation and many jobs and that it would look after the area and then later say that it is too poor to make proper restitution.
I do not share the view that is held by some of my hon. Friends that these measures should be fiscally neutral. The oil industry generally has done pretty well out of the North sea and it should have provided more for the Government. The only comfort I take is that, although the oil industry did not produce as much for the Government as I should have liked, the Government have totally squandered the North sea revenues that they received. When North sea oil drilling began, the Opposition argued strongly that there should be a specific investment fund and that revenue should go to develop not only Aberdeen—although, of course, it needed development—but the infrastructure for the manufacturing capacity of this country. That was resisted because the Treasury dislikes hypothetical revenues, and that allowed the Government to waste the assets of the North sea. I hope that they will do better with those assets in future. I look forward to seeing the benefits from the North sea accruing to the people of this country—not only to the oil companies and those who have shares in the business.

Mr. Malcolm Moss: I shall try to be as brief as possible.
The Bill has been warmly welcomed by Labour and Conservative Members and by the oil industry. The new fiscal regime will help to remove obstacles to the development of worthwhile and economically viable


projects. The Government have recognised that royalty—a non-profit-related levy—was the most serious impediment to development. The abolition of royalty, coupled with tax changes, will give a new incentive for new gas developments and developments onshore. By removing the tax on wells and substituting a tax on profits, we now have a fairer system, which will encourage marginal projects to come forward and which should give a boost to the smaller and more independent oil companies. Despite a good record of new fields being developed and new wells being drilled, we should seek to exact the maximum return from this most valuable national asset.
I shall now deal with the question of undrilled acreage. The problem of the banking of acreage stems from the first four rounds of licensing. There is still a major incentive to the oil companies to develop that acreage. The licences end in the period 2010–18 and the Bill does not provide for the extension of those licences. The normal lifespan is 20 years, so the licensees may run out of time to complete extraction during the period of tenure of the licence. They are urged to come forward so that they do not fall foul of the time limit.
The Government believe that there are now good grounds for seeking to secure new impetus in the exploration of undrilled acreage. One obvious point is that the undrilled portion is an important potential addition to the United Kingdom's oil and gas reserves. Recent developments in recovery technology have improved the viability of smaller fields. The Department of Energy is encouraging licensees of undrilled plots to explore them more thoroughly. The Department has made it clear that the oil companies are expected to give details of plans to do just that.
I am delighted that the Minister made the clear point in a recent announcement that the new applications for the 11th round will be considered in the light of the existing licensees' plans on undrilled acreage. That is most welcome, and I urge my right hon. Friend to press that point whenever possible. Any measure that helps to avoid the banking of acreage is to be welcomed.
I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of the report from stockbrokers Gilbert Eliott who looked at the problem and made certain suggestions. Instead of the full United Kingdom continental shelf coming forward in a series of licensing rounds, the report proposed that the shelf should be divided into four regions and that all the available acreage should be offered once a year, by quarters in rotation. If any block remained undrilled for 10 years, the Department could demand its relinquishment.
The report claims that the scheme will have several advantages. First, there will be a constant work load for the industry and the Department of Energy, which is surely to be welcomed; secondly, sitting on undrilled acreage will cease; thirdly, regional geological assessments would become possible; fourthly, long-term exploration planning would be easier; fifthly—most important—there would be constant opportunity for new entrants.
Many new entrants are our own United Kingdom independent producers. They are an important group and their vital contributions have recently been acknowledged by the Minister. However, this year the number of United Kingdom independents has fallen by about a quarter. In

February we had 40 companies; in August we had only 31. Such companies are facing several problems at present, such as the fact that their cash flows are not good and the oil price is depressed. The OPEC decision of the last few days may be of some encouragement to them.
Many United Kingdom independents are involved in onshore exploration. It is to be welcomed that the Bill gives a great step forward by having a royalties exemption clause for onshore exploration. However, problems still face those who wish to develop on shore: for example, the reserve sizes are questionable, the planning process is lengthy and there is no petroleum tax relief. I recently heard further evidence to the effect that the cost of drilling a well on shore to a depth of 6,000 ft. would cost about £750,000, whereas an offshore 15,000-ft. well would cost £2·7 million. However, when tax is taken into consideration, the net cost of the onshore well would be £480,000 compared with only £430,000 for the offshore well.
Managements involved in decision-making face competing demands on their costs. Often, the choice is made in favour of an offshore field, probably abroad, instead of encouraging the development of our United Kingdom potential to its full.
Finally, I turn to the southern basin—an area of the North sea that is important to my constituency and significant to the economy of East Anglia. The development of additional gas reserves will help preserve the production and infrastructure that is in place, and will keep jobs in my region. With electricity privatisation, there are serious possibilities of gas coming on shore for gas turbine stations. That would be a welcome addition to electricity generation in the area.
One cannot stress enough the importance of the fiscal changes in the Bill and their importance to investment decisions in the oil industry. However, there appears to be some difference in interpretation between the Government and the oil companies on the importance of internal rates of return on a field at the expense of concerns about the present value and pattern of cash flow.
I believe that when these matters were dealt with in Committee on the Finance Bill, the oil industry raised the question of the level of tonnes per chargeable period, which the Bill brings down from 250,000 to 125,000. Will the Minister give an assurance that he will monitor that regularly to ensure that it does not militate against development and that the necessary new fields come forward as we hope?
We have heard from the Minister this evening that we have a buoyant oil and gas industry. All who work in the industry deserve our greatest admiration and gratitude. Theirs is a dangerous occupation and since the Piper Alpha disaster, which has been referred to by many hon. Members, many families must be under considerable mental and emotional pressure as they await the return of their loved ones from tours of duty on the rigs. This House and those families are grateful for the Minister's categorical assurance that the highest safety standards are operated at present, and will be in the future.

Mr. Doran: This has been an extremely useful debate, although at some distance removed from the precise purpose of the Bill. However, it has highlighted some of the major problems and issues that are faced in the offshore oil and gas industries.
The points made by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), who is not in his place at the moment, seemed to be a plea on behalf of the oil industry, not just for the fiscal neutrality of the Bill, but for a lowering of tax rates. I certainly do not agree with that, and I am sure that none of my hon. Friends would agree either, unless the lowering of tax rates were related specifically to development proposals.
I take on board the points made by the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) about the banking of acreage and our need to encourage development. Some of his points bear further scrutiny.
The major issue that we must deal with is that of safety. Several points have been put to the Minister, who has already responded favourably to one of them. I was pleased to hear his statement on the importance of the abandonment of the Piper Alpha platform. However, I should like him to be specific on one point. When I recently met the Secretary of State for Energy—if my memory serves me correctly I should also have met the Minister of State, but he was called away to Downing street for something which, unfortunately, appears not to have been noteworthy or important—the right hon. Gentleman was at pains to point out that what was intended at this stage was an interim measure in the interests of safety because there was serious concern that the remains of the Piper Alpha platform could topple in the bad winter weather. Despite the fact that supports are being manufactured for the remains of the platform, it is not likely that the platform will survive the winter. Therefore, I am a wee bit unsure about what the Minister said earlier in response to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). I am not sure whether the Minister is now talking about an interim measure, or a more permanent arrangement. I should like him to clarify that if he can.
The question of safety in the North sea has been canvassed because it is the main issue at the moment and concerns us all. I have already said that the Government should not sit on their hands and wait until the report from Lord Cullen's inquiry is available before dealing with the obvious points that require action now. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to that.
I hope that the Minister will take on board the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North about trade union rights. Again, at recent meetings with the Secretary of State it was made clear that the publication of the consultation document leading to regulations for safety committees and safety representatives in the North sea was likely. We shall continue to press our points on trade union representation. It is not just a question of establishing safety committees, because such committees require back-up. Onshore there is a well-established, well-tried system, involving trade unions on a statutory basis. Those committees have been shown to be enormously successful in improving the onshore safety record.
We want the same thing to happen offshore. We want the members of those safety committees and the safety

representatives to have access to the independent information and advice that is provided by the trade unions' research staff. We want a genuine contribution to safety in the North sea through the establishment of such committees and safety representatives, not a muted or toothless talking shop.
The matter of the inquiry is coupled with the points made about the Piper Alpha platform. Will the Minister repeat the assurance given to me in a private discussion that every effort will be made to recover whatever evidence remains at the bottom of the sea? I understand the difficulty and the risk involved in recovering the various modules that still lie on the sea bed under this dangerous platform. I hope the Minister understands that there is still much uncertainty, for example, about where the original explosion occurred and how it occurred. Can he give us an assurance that no effort will be spared to recover vital evidence?

Mr. Peter Morrison: I agree with the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) that this has been a constructive debate. It has also given the House the opportunity to range more widely than the precise provisions in the Bill, and that is helpful, not least because for the last 18 months we have not had an opportunity to debate the oil and gas industries. Very important issues have been raised, some of which dealt with the tragedy in July on Piper Alpha. The debate has not been very political, and perhaps the industry is successful because politics and politicians do not interfere in it to any great extent.
I shall attempt quickly to answer the questions raised in the debate. The hon. Members for Aberdeen, South, for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) asked whether the work of the safety directorate would continue during Lord Cullen's public inquiry. I can give a categorical assurance that that is correct. I thought that I said earlier that that will be the case. I was also asked about the emergency shut-down valves. Proposals about those have been received by my Department from the industry, and in the light of those we are urgently considering what new regulations would be appropriate.
The point has been made to me in my office and elsewhere that there should be a separate safety directorate. The hon. Member for Gordon said that I rebutted that with chagrin and that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy was prone to doing the same. I do not think that I did it like that; but, of course, I accept that that is how my reaction may have been judged. I thought that I said, in as reasonable a way as possible, that Lord Cullen would look at that matter and that we would look carefully at the recommendations in Lord Cullen's report. If my reaction came across as chagrin, it was not meant as such.
As the Opposition know, we have followed the majority decision of the Burgoyne committee which was made at the beginning of this decade. That was assumed to be a satisfactory way of proceeding, and until that fateful evening in July not one parliamentary question had been put to me about the safety regime as such. Obviously hon. Members and outside bodies feel strongly about this matter, and it will be looked at carefully in the public inquiry.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South asked specifically about the abandonment of the Piper Alpha platform. In an intervention during his speech I gave him an answer to that question. I repeat that the decision made overnight by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I was subject to certain conditions.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South asked whether debris would be moved or removed. One of the conditions of the abandonment proposals is that my right hon. Friend can provide for debris to be moved, or removed, as he may direct. It was not until I intervened in the hon. Gentleman's speech that I made public at all, even to Occidental, the situation as it stands.

Mr. Doran: The other main point I made about platform abandonment was whether the decision announced today by the Minister was a permanent or interim decision.

Mr. Morrison: It is subject to the possibility of written representations by Occidental. In my office the hon. Gentleman and I discussed toppling the platform outwards. Such a controlled toppling would ensure that the remaining debris would be not be crumpled, or crumpled further, as it might be if the platform were toppled by natural forces. I hope that I have made the position clear, as I understand it.
I was asked about pipelines and whether the certifying authorities were properly co-ordinated. I can give an assurance that that is the case. If the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South has any specific matter to raise with me, perhaps he could do so after the debate and I shall quite happily look at it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) spoke about discussions that he and his wife had had with friends about the corrosion of platforms. I assure him that there is a continuing requirement for platforms to be regularly examined for corrosion. They will continue to be structurally examined at regular intervals by the certifying authorities so that they come up to the standards required by regulations before certificates of fitness can be issued. I hope that my hon. Friend is reassured by that.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South asked about the British Gas monopoly. Perhaps that matter concerns many hon. Members. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission produced a report a little earlier this year. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has asked the Director General of Fair Trading to look at the proposal in the MMC report that up to 90 per cent. of a particular field should be sold to British Gas and that the other 10 per cent. should be sold to another client. As the hon. Gentleman realises, more customers are coming forward. One can quote, for example, the sale of gas from the Miller field to the North of Scotland Hydro Electricity Board. To a certain extent, that is starting to break what might have been a monopoly.
I do not wish to detain the House any further because we have other important matters to discuss. The Bill is short and remarkable for being uncontroversial. It is the first Bill to be presented in this Session and it is important because it has a key part to play in the economy and in industry. I am most heartened that there is cross-party agreement on the Bill, and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Fallon.

Committee tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — Procedure

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fallon.]

[Relevant Procedure Committee documents: Second Report (HC 49 of Session 1984–85) on Public Bill Procedure; Second Report (HC 324 of Session 1985–86) on Allocation of Time to Government Bills in Standing Committee; First Report (HC 157 of Session 1986–87) on A Parliamentary Calendar; Second Report (HC 350 of Session 1986–87) on Use of Time on the Floor of the House; Third Report (HC 254 of Session 1986–87) on Early Day Motions; Fourth Report (HC 373 of Session 1986–87) on the Work of the Committee; and First Report (HC 705 of Session 1987–88) on the Implications for Procedure of the Experiment in Televising the Proceedings of the House.]

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): One of the many duties of the Leader of the House is to try to ensure that its procedures are kept under regular review and that the House has opportunities from time to time to express its opinions on procedural matters. Tonight's debate on a motion for the Adjournment provides such an opportunity and will enable hon. Members to raise any aspect of procedure in which they have an interest.
The main matters before us tonight are the Procedure Committee's reports, listed on the Order Paper. I shall make some comments on those reports later in my speech, but first I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and the fellow members of his Committee for their conscientious and valuable work. I understand that my hon. Friend hopes to catch your eye later tonight, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to hearing what he has to say.
In addition to these reports, however, there are several other current procedural matters which are of particular concern to a number of hon. Members. The Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure has recently produced a report of fundamental importance, for which I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) and to the other members of his Committee. As hon. Members will appreciate, the report will require detailed and extensive consultation. This is bound to take some time, and I see no prospect of legislation being introduced this Session, but I have said that, unusually, I will try to arrange a debate before the Government have responded to the Committee's recommendation in the normal way so that the views of the House can be expressed.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish): I am sure that the Leader of the House will realise that this is not only an excellent report but the culmination of a great deal of concern in the House about this matter. He is saying that there will be a chance for an early debate, but little chance of changing Standing Orders in this Session. Does that mean that private Bills being introduced in 12 months' time will still go on under the old procedure? Many hon. Members feel that that would be unsatisfactory.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is aware that there are moves afoot from various hon. Members to block private business so as to precipitate a decision. I for one would not be too enthusiastic at having to carry out

that exercise for a whole 12 months. Will the Leader of the House at least give thought to the idea that, by the time Bills are introduced in 12 months, we should have the new procedures in operation?

Mr. Wakeham: I am not sure that I go along with the hon. Member's suggestion that it is acceptable to deal with matters before the House not on the merits of the issues but having regard to other considerations which are nothing to do with the promoters of the Bill or the merits of the Bill. I know that he wants to be helpful, and I wish to be helpful as well. This is an important report, and we should not delay it unnecessarily. The right thing to do is to have a debate as soon as we can to hear the views. I said, not that Standing Orders could not be altered if that was the will of the House, but that the legislation that will be necessary to implement some of these proposals could not be introduced this Session. The best thing is to proceed with a debate on the issue as soon as we can, to hear the views and see whether there is a measure of agreement as to how we should proceed and in what direction.
Another issue which came significantly and sadly to the fore in the last Session of Parliament was the behaviour of hon. Members in the Chamber. We all expect that debates will sometimes be passionate and that feelings will run high, but we also expect Members to bow to your authority, Mr. Speaker, when you rule that things have gone far enough. Last Session, hon. Members were suspended from the service of the House nine times, compared with just 17 previous such occasions in more than 40 years since the war. This fact perhaps shows that the penalty of a five-day suspension is no longer enough when calculated against the media publicity that such suspensions entail. Hon. Members may wish to air their views on this matter this evening. I am sure that the Procedure Committee, which is currently considering the matter, will find them helpful.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is there not another side to this coin, which is that the most senior Ministers of the House of Commons should tell the truth to the House of Commons?

Mr. Wakeham: I refute that. I do not believe that it is any justification for disobeying Mr. Speaker, on any basis. I am surprised that the hon. Member, with his experience, believes that that justifies him disobeying Mr. Speaker.
A further matter affecting the procedures of the House which will be in hon. Members' minds is the effect which television has on our deliberations. The Committee has just published its first report of the current Parliament on this matter. I have noted the Committee's recommendations that there should be no change to procedures while the experiment is in operation, and I concur with this. 'We have voted for an experimental period of televising. Let us have the experimental period first before we decide on any implications for our procedure.

Mr. Roger Knapman: I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the debate on 9 February, when the motion before the House was:
That this House approves in principle the holding of an experiment in the public broadcasting of its proceedings by television; and believes that a Select Committee should be appointed to consider the implementation of such an experiment".
I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the fact that the television cameras have already been in this


Chamber during the proceedings of this place. I understand that it would be surprising if the State Opening were deemed not to be a proceeding for the purpose of privilege. After all, both Houses are at that time properly constituted. In those circumstances, how can the Committee study
the implementation of such an experiment
when the implementation has already taken place?

Mr. Wakeham: I assure my hon. Friend that the Committee, of which I am the Chairman, has not yet finished its deliberations or started to make its report. That report has to come before the House, and it has to be approved by the House before any experiment, under the terms of the resolution that my hon. Friend quoted, can be carried out by the House. I gave no permission for any television cameras to proceed, so it is not a matter for me whether any television cameras broadcast at any time.
My hon. Friend may be referring to the fact that, at the time of the State Opening of Parliament, there were some television cameras in the Chamber which were used not for the broadcasting of the State Opening but for an experiment in the lighting arrangements, which was conducted by the Committee the day before, and which had been the subject of some discussion in the House. As far as I know, those cameras were not connected to the gubbins that are necessary before they can produce the signals that can go out across the ether to the great wide world. As I understand it, they were in operation the day before and the only signal that was received was on six monitors that were in the Aye Lobby at the time.
Where did I get to?

Sir Peter Emery: Do not start all over again.

Mr. Wakeham: I think that I was saying, to put it into a sentence, that we should deal with the experiment of television before we deal with the procedures of the House. The tail must not be allowed to wag the dog.
Each hon. Member will have his own particular interests and priorities in procedural matters. If they succeed in catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, I have little doubt, for example, that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) will have something to say on the times and lengths of our sittings, the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) may remind us of the importance of arrangements for scrutinising EC documents, and the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Faulds) may be able to advise us how best to prepare ourselves for television. Other subjects, which I have not touched upon, could be raised.

Mr. Dalyell: Did the Leader of the House notice this afternoon the difficulty into which Mr. Speaker once again got as a result of this abomination of the open question? Is he going to give any views on the shortcomings of the open question? Have the Government considered whether this is a satisfactory arrangement? When we first came here, Prime Minister's questions were extremely strict and Macmillan and Home, and Wilson in his better days, would transfer any question that was not the responsibility of the Prime Minister. I submitted evidence to the Committee on this subject, and I wonder whether the Government have any reflections on it.

Mr. Wakeham: The Government are perfectly willing to agree with the wishes of the House in this matter. The Government do not have a strong view on how those matters should be dealt with. Ministers are here to answer questions and they will do their best to do so. However, the present arrangements are probably the most generally acceptable to the House. We may be a little wiser at the end of the debate, and the Procedure Committee may return to the issue.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Wakeham: This will be the last time that I give way. This debate is designed to enable people to express their views, and hon. Members can make their own speeches.

Mr. Thompson: I was interested in the point that has just been made about the televising of Parliament and the State Opening. I watched the television programme on the State Opening, so I intervene merely for information. I do not know which cameras were used, but there was a view of the Chamber including all the Benches. I do not know how that was obtained and I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider that point.

Mr. Wakeham: I am happy to consider that point, but it has nothing to do with my Committee. We did not do anything that we should not have done. Front-Bench Opposition Members who are distinguished members of that Committee can confirm that we are innocent.
I wish briefly to outline some general principles and to comment particularly on two of the principal matters dealt with in the Procedure Committee's reports which are before us tonight.
It seems to me that there are certain general questions which hon. Members on both sides of the House need to ask themselves when considering the principle and practicality of these or any other changes to our present procedures. First, will they in practice mean a more efficient scrutiny of legislation by the House? Secondly, do they respect the rights of the Opposition to probe the Government's proposals and advocate alternatives? Thirdly, can they be implemented without making unreasonable demands on the time and energies of Back Benchers? Fourthly, do they still permit a Government to "get their business" in an acceptable way? In other words, the proposals should not lay themselves open to exploitation designed to disrupt the normal proceedings of the House. Of course, a balance between these questions may need to be struck, but I believe that Members will wish to be assured that any changes in procedure will provide satisfactory answers to them.
Against that background, I turn, first, to the Committee's revised proposals for the timetabling of Government Bills in Standing Committee; and, secondly, to the proposals for major changes in the procedures for dealing with delegated legislation, and, in particular, prayers.
On timetabling, if I may remind the House, the Committee's main recommendation is that each Standing Committee should have its own Business Sub-Committee. After six sittings of the Standing Committee, the Business Sub-Committee would report to it, in the absence of "satisfactory understandings", its proposals on the date by which the Bill concerned should be reported to the House, the number of sittings required and, if appropriate, the


times at which the various stages of the Bill should be concluded. Such reports would be brought before the Standing Committee for debate and decision.
I share the desire of the Procedure Committee to move towards the introduction of timetable motions, where necessary, at a time which allows for properly apportioned consideration of a Bill. In the most recent Session of Parliament, we have done our best to organise the business with this in mind, most notably with the timetable motions on the Education Reform and Local Government Finance Bills.
However, I see several difficulties with the Committee's proposals. In my view, they may be an overreaction to a comparatively limited problem. I acknowledge that, in some cases in recent years, Committee stages have led to unbalanced scrutiny—the Telecommunications Bill is an example—but such instances are comparatively rare and, as I have explained, I am trying to reduce them still further.
Moreover, it seems to me critical that decisions about the progress of individual Standing Committees and the need for timetabling should be taken and negotiated, as at present, in the context of a judgment on the progress of business in the House as a whole. I am not convinced that the proposed Business Sub-Committees would be able to take account of all the factors involved, nor is there any guarantee that the overall time spent by Back Benchers in Committee would not increase.
However, I have discussed with my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) the various ways in which individual Standing Committees might be given some formal role in bringing the progress of business in Committee to the attention of the House. I hope that these discussions can be taken further forward, so that I can bring forward practical proposals to the House. In particular, I look forward to hearing the suggestions of Opposition Members in a few minutes' time.
On delegated legislation, the Committee has put forward proposals which they hope would enable prayers to be debated and which would, as a quid pro quo to the Government, hold out the prospect of more affirmative motions being taken in Committee. In order to achieve this, the Committee proposes that any 20 Members would have the right to move at 3.30 pm that a prayer should be referred to a Standing Committee, with such motions being blockable by 20 or more other Members. A Minister, backed by a majority, would also have the power to ensure that an affirmative order was taken in Standing Committee rather than on the Floor. In other words, this would override the present blocking power of 20 Members.
Again, however, I see a number of potential difficulties with these proposals as they now stand.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Wakeham: I said that I would not give way again because I want to hear everyone's views, and it is important that I get on.
Regarding the proposals on prayers, I believe that there is, again, a danger of exaggerating the problems that they are designed to address. Although I accept that a large number of prayers go undebated, as the House knows, prayers are frequently tabled for purposes other than

debate. I believe that, in the majority of cases where there is a genuine widespread desire for a debate, consultations through the usual channels enable this to be arranged.
I recognise that the Liberal party—if I am allowed to call it by that name—does not get as many prayers as it would like, but, by definition, the number of Liberal Members means that they cannot always command a large number of prayers.

Mr. Beith: Surely the right hon. Gentleman knows that, when those procedures were introduced, the then Leader of the House said that time would be found for all prayers to be dabated. The test of whether a prayer should be debated is not whether a large number of Members wish to debate it, but whether it constitutes legislation and should therefore be scrutinised by the House.

Mr. Wakeham: The present arrangements are reasonably satisfactory, and those prayers which there is a widespread desire to debate are debated. I am considering a proposal in the report which I believe is not totally satisfactory. Moreover, it seems to me that the proposals whereby any 20 Members could at 3.30 block prayers from going into Committee for debate might invite regular and unproductive confrontation at this time of day. As far as affirmative orders are concerned, existing provisions mean that effectively, when the Opposition so desire, arrangements are made to take them on the Floor. Under the Committee's proposals, this provision would be lost. I do not believe that this would be acceptable either to the official Opposition or to private Members generally.
Looking at the Committee's other recommendations on delegated legislation, while I accept that debate on substantive motions on instruments in Committee would give the latter a more formal role, I suspect that this would lead to greater attention to whipping arrangements than at present and to longer hours for Committee members; so, too, would the proposal for scrapping the 11.30 "cut-off' for prayers, with the "knock-on" effect that this would have on earlier business.
Recalling to mind the general questions that I posed earlier, Mr. Speaker, I am not myself convinced that the Committee's proposals on the scrutiny of delegated legislation or on the timetabling of Bills answer them satisfactorily.
We do not live in a perfect world. It would be excellent if the House had the time to consider at length every piece of delegated legislation, every European document, every clause of every Bill, and all in the civilised hours that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North is proposing. Unless we invent some sort of time tardis, where the time available is infinitely longer than would appear from the outside parameters, then we shall have to accept that giving more time to one area of our work will restrict consideration of another.
In recent Sessions, the House has reached general agreement and taken a consequent decision on a number of procedural matters. For example, Mr. Speaker, you now have the power to call for short speeches during certain debates; steps have been taken against filibustering during Committee and Report stages; and Special Standing Committees have been incorporated into the Standing Orders of the House. Tonight's debate provides us with a useful opportunity to assess other common


ground on procedure and determine the general wishes of the House on the next priorities for action. I shall listen with interest.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I advise the House that I have no authority to impose short speeches in this debate. However, as the debate must end at 10 o'clock, I ask those who participate in it to be brief so that all hon. Members now in the Chamber may contribute to it.

Sir Peter Emery: I welcome, however belatedly, the holding of the debate. I thank my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for the kind things that he said about me. I do not believe that it is sour grapes for me to comment that the first of the reports that we are considering this evening was published 29 months ago. With the exception of the report which was published yesterday, the remaining four reports were published not later than May 1987, in the previous Session. The House may recall that we were first promised the debate during business questions in June 1987.
I hope that the House will not think me unreasonable when I say that 14 senior Members spent many hours in Committee and in detailed research trying to produce recommendations that may drag, even at a snail's pace, some of the procedures of the House into the 20th century, not the 21st century, or even 1992. Surely the Government have a responsibility—yea, I venture to say a duty—to ensure that the House is allowed to debate our reports within a reasonable period—six months after the submission of reports. A delay of two years is an insult to those who have spent much time and effort on their work. Indeed, one member of the Procedure Committee refused to remain a member of it during the previous Parliament because he decided that its work was not considered seriously by either of the Front Benches. Perhaps I may have an assurance that that is not the position, and that in future our reports will be put promptly before the House, especially when reform of procedure is part of the recommendation.
I turn now to happier matters. I am grateful that two of the Committee's recommendations have found their way on to the statute book, as it were. The use of Special Standing Committees is now part of Standing Committee procedure, but I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to ensure that they are used when appropriate. Since the acceptance of the procedure on 27 February 1986—I remember the date because it is my birthday—no Bill has been referred to a Special Standing Committee. Is the procedure to be allowed to wither on the vine? The Licensing Bill, as it then was, which was considered in the previous Session, was not a highly party-political measure and it would have been ideal for the Special Standing Committee procedure, which would have enabled outside views to be heard.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Leader of the House should tell us which of the Bills referred to in the Gracious Speech he intends to refer to a Special Standing Committee?

Sir Peter Emery: I am certain that my right hon. Friend will have heard the hon. Gentleman's sensible intervention. Perhaps we shall have an answer to his question.
I am happy that the 10-minute rule for speeches during the middle two hours of a debate has been enshrined, but perhaps the House will accept my apology, as Chairman of the Procedure Committee, with six reports before the House, for not containing my remarks within 600 seconds.
I shall try to deal with four of the main parts of the Committee's reports. The part which I consider to be the most important is the allocation of time for the consideration of a Bill in Committee and on the Floor of the House. After all, time is essential for all of us in this place. I hope that this issue will be the main consideration of those who participate in the debate when I resume my seat. Even if other matters are of importance to them, I ask hon. Members to press the Government and the Opposition to accept that the Committee's recommendations have positive merit and deserve at least an experimental period so that their workability, which has been questioned by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, can be assessed properly.
What is the history of the matter? When the Procedure Committee was established at the beginning of the previous Parliament, in March 1984, it was directed by the House to consider the passage of Bills in Committee. After considerable study the Committee reported on a procedure for the formation of a Legislative Business Committee that would assess each Bill. That Committee, if it considered that a Bill would remain in Committee for more than 40 hours, would establish a time structure to be set so that all parts of the Bill would be considered in Committee without the need of a special timetable motion to be debated and passed on the Floor of the House.
That proposal was voted down because it was considered to be too inflexible. That meant that it took a little power away from the business managers and the Whips and, audaciously, gave that power to Back-Bench Members. We now know that that is the definition of inflexibility. When we set out to whittle away the power of the Whips, the walls of Jericho are before us. The trumpets of the Procedure Committee were not strong enough.
Having analysed the vote on the issue, there was a greater turnout of the Establishment—my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, members of the Cabinet, junior Whips and all the Parliamentary Private Secretaries—than on any other three-line Whip of the Parliament. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, for I mislead you. It was a greater turnout of the Establishment than on any other Division because it was a one-line Whip, not a three-line or two-line Whip. To safeguard "flexibility", the payroll marched into the Government Lobby three abreast. Only two members of it were absent. One was quite ill and the wife of the other was presenting him with a child.
The Procedure Committee was not discouraged. If it was, it was for only a moment. It turned the other cheek and tried to overcome the criticisms. It adopted the criteria that are now agreed with the business managers. The four main essentials in considering changes are exactly those which were outlined by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. They are as follows: will they in practice lead to a material improvement; do they leave intact the legitimate rights of the Opposition; can they be implemented without placing unreasonable extra burdens on Back Benchers; do they still permit the Government to get their business?
What is necessary for Bills that are being considered in Committee? A Committee should not waste 100 or 120 hours debating the first three or four clauses of a Bill, thereby proving its virility in its opposition to the measure, until a guillotine motion is forced on the Government. As a procedure, that is nonsense.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: How many examples of that can the hon. Gentleman place before us?

Sir Peter Emery: There are a number of examples. During each Session, between five and seven timetable motions have to be introduced. The result of that procedure means, in many instances, that half or two thirds of the Bills are never discussed in Committee. I cannot give all the statistics to the House in what must be a short speech. I merely say that the facts are set out at the back of the Committee's report. The issue has been analysed quite fully and the conclusion hits the argument that there are not many examples of the first three or four clauses of a Bill being discussed for 100 or 120 hours, for example.
Steps should be taken to try to ensure that every part of a Bill is discussed in Committee. We should not further the madness whereby amendments and clauses are discussed and voted upon hours after midnight after a normal working day. The rest of the world thinks that we are mad, or, even worse, irresponsible, in continuing with this medieval procedure. The House may take these all-night sittings seriously but the country does not, especially when we appear to be acting as prize asses.
What has the Procedure Committee recommended? The recommendation is that, after six sittings of a Bill in Committee, the Business Sub-Committee—which would be similar to that appointed after a timetable motion, but nominated at the time of the selection of the Committee—should consider whether the Bill is proceeding satisfactorily. If it is, which will be the position in nine out of 10 instances, as suggested by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), no action will be taken and the Committee will proceed in the normal way. If the Business Sub-Committee considers that there are problems, it will take only one action at the first instance, but not that inferred by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. It will decide by what date the Bill needs to be reported to the House. The Members and the Whips will then use their brilliant and historic techniques to help bring this about, with the proviso that time is found for every part of the Bill to be debated.
If that procedure has been implemented, the Business Sub-Committee will meet again after 25 hours of debate. If all is proceeding reasonably at that stage, no further action will be taken. If, however, the Bill is bogged down, the Business Sub-Committee will then, and only then, decide exactly what time shall be allocated to each part of the Bill and how that will be structured within the date required for the Bill to be reported to the House. That may require afternoon sittings, evening sittings or even sittings three days a week. However, there should be no sittings after 10 pm or after the rising of the House. In that instance. Opposition Members will know, from their experience of dealing with timetable motions, that when a Business Sub-Committee operates, the Opposition call the shots as to what should or should not be debated within the time scale. We give a specific power to the Opposition

to ensure that what they want to have properly debated in Committee, as long as all parts of the Bill are debated, shall be given proper and adequate time.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: That is not so. Once the slots are allocated, any member of the Committee can filibuster or talk at length on one item so that a particular issue in that slot is not reached. That happens frequently under the present guillotine procedure. The hon. Gentleman is saying that the Government want to timetable a Bill from the start. If that is what he is after, that is totally unacceptable to the Opposition.

Sir Peter Emery: I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is the last thing that I am trying to obtain. If what the Eon. Gentleman is suggesting occurs, it is within the power of the Business Sub-Committee to allocate much smaller slots than at present. There is a method within the proposal to correct that sort of thing. Having had to deal with Business Sub-Committees, I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's criticism. If his criticism is true, the Business Sub-Committee could allocate the slots to a smaller amount of time to ensure that what he suggests does not happen and that the filibuster is not used.
Two matters are very important. First, there have been no instances that the Clerk of the House can find over the past 30 years where delays caused by the Opposition in Committee have stopped a piece of legislation set out in the Queen's Speech from reaching the statute book. Nor has delay in one Bill stopped other Bills announced in the Queen's Speech from being enacted. The concept of great delays in Committee harassing the Government and stopping legislation is a false shibboleth. The only harm that does is to the sleeping habits of the Back-Bench members of that Committee.
Secondly, if the procedure that I have outlined were adopted, we would save between two and a half and three and a half days a Session on the Floor of the House. That time might be given to private Members' Bills or perhaps it would allow the House to rise a week earlier at the end of a Session. Everyone knows that the present half-day taken for a timetable motion is a complete waste of time. We no longer see it as a great parliamentary occasion. Usually the House has only a smattering of Members. There is no real heat, as there used to be 20 or 30 years ago, and time after time we hear the same speeches of noise and thunder. If ever Macbeth's lines apply outside the original script, they do to guillotine motions:
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.

Mr. David Alton: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a matter not simply of people's sleeping habits being interrupted, but that the primary job of a Committee, of scrutinising legislation, does not occur? Whole chunks of legislation go through which have never seen the light of day in Committee.

Sir Peter Emery: The hon. Gentleman's intervention came at exactly the right moment in my speech. I was about to say that we should have sensibly staged debates in Committee so that a Bill can be properly and fully considered and not sent off to the Lords half-digested. That would save considerable time on the Floor of the House. We would also not have the filibuster at the start, which is useless.
More time could be saved if the second-look procedure were adopted. Under that procedure, the Government


would give undertakings to introduce amendments or reconsider specific points. The Standing Committee could be adjourned after the normal completion of the Bill and asked to sit again within three weeks to take up the points that have been outlined by the Minister. The Minister would return to deal with those points which he considered helpful. That would save those matters having to be dealt with on Report and in certain instances—for example, the Committee stage of the Housing Act 1988—a vast amount of time could be saved for the Report stage and for the House as a whole.
The first report of the Procedure Committee of Session 1986–87 recommended that a parliamentary calendar should be fixed for the dates of sittings. It must be to the benefit of Members to know exactly, more than just a few days ahead, what the schedule of the House is for Christmas and Easter even if the Government require flexibility at the end of the summer. It is no good saying, "Well, one knows approximately." If we want to make plans for constituency tours, overseas visits or to make arrangements with our families, whether the House is returning on 7 January or on any day up to 21 January is of vital importance to our engagements. The Government should be able to announce the dates for rising and returning for the Christmas and Easter recesses at the end of the Queen's Speech, even if they will not accept the full calendar arrangements set out in the report.
The report about televising the proceedings is quite clear, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has summed it up. It is for television to adapt to ensure that Parliament is properly portrayed and presented to the viewing public. Therefore, no changes to procedure are required at this stage.
There is a great need for consideration of delegated legislation. The report on delegated legislation is detailed and specific and highlights a number of serious problems that are likely to become worse rather than better. More and more we see parliamentary draftsmen and civil servants legislating the principle of the law, but leaving the regulations—the nitty-gritty of the law—to be decided by statutory instrument, which is out of the way in 90 minutes and can be altered the following year and every subsequent year if required. That is not the way that the Procedure Committee believes that the laws of the land should be made.
As 1992 approaches and more EEC regulations come upon us, the Procedure Committee report makes detailed and specific observations. The amount of European legislation that must be considered is much greater than most hon. Members understand. It is imperative that a more effective method for our consideration of that delegated legislation is found. I urge that paragraphs 11 to 38 of the report should have a full debate and not just be shoved away. Those aspects of delegated legislation and the necessary reforms for amendments to delegated legislation require a great deal of thought.
The strong dissatisfaction about the ability of private Members' legislation to be fully considered by the House was more obvious than any other issue raised by hon. Members with the Procedure Committee. That was clear to the previous Procedure Committee and was reinforced to the present Committee. On two Mondays in the late spring, instead of having four half-days for private

Members' motions, they should be transferred to two appropriate Fridays. Secondly, the longer full two days should be replaced by an allocation to private Members' Bills. The Government would lose no time and private Members would benefit.
The House should consider whether the hon. Member in charge of the first Bill on that Monday should be allowed the option of moving the suspension of the 10 o'clock rule. Of course, that could be divided against and the hon. Member would have to carry the House. Again, the Government would lose none of their allocation of time if such a motion were carried. However, that would be a way of overcoming the strong feeling that when a Bill received very strong support on Second Reading it should not be blocked by three or four strategically placed amendments on Report on a Friday. It should have the same possibility of consideration as is given to Government legislation. That is not as revolutionary as it sounds because it would apply only to two private Members' Bills each year—those which were first on the two Mondays to which they were allocated.

Mr. Alton: I welcome what the hon. Gentleman has said. Does he agree with the Bow Group's recent recommendation that the House should have the ability to formulate and move a motion to provide extra time for private Members' Bills? If it is the will of the House, after a Bill has had a Second Reading and been considered in Committee and on Report, surely it would not be unreasonable to allow the House of Commons to decide whether it wishes to allocate more time to complete the stages of that Bill.

Sir Peter Emery: I fully understand what the hon. Gentleman says. However, I have to consider the way in which the Government act. The Government act in a very predictable way. That suggestion would mean that some Government time would have to be allocated to private Members' Bills. Our suggestion involves no taking away of Government time. Therefore, it stands a better chance of being accepted by the Government than anything that would cut Government time. Obviously, hon. Members must make their own speeches.
Lastly, I wish to make two small but interesting suggestions. One is that a special or emergency Adjournment debate be allowed by the Speaker on two occasions per week for 20 minutes—a 10-minute speech and a 10-minute reply by a Minister—prior to the normal Adjournment. That would be for specific matters of considerable importance that had arisen. Some hon. Members do not like that suggestion, but it was made by the Committee.
The other suggestion is the possibility of time for private Members' motions on a Friday being split so that one is debated for three hours—rather similar to a Monday half-day—thereby allowing a second motion to be debated for two hours. That, again, would spread the availability of time for private Members.
The House will be aware that much work has been done by the Committee. I do not intend to sum up what I have said, but simply return to the most important points. If Parliament is seriously to be considered as trying to make sense of its procedure, nowhere more than upstairs in Committee is sensible change essential. We must not waste hon. Members' time in parliamentary dog-fighting, even if it is only for 50 or 70 hours—as was suggested by my right


hon. Friend the Leader of the House—on the first few clauses of a Bill. We must ensure that all parts of a Bill are seriously considered, debated and open to amendment before the Bill leaves the Committee. We must not sit at all hours of the day and night, to the scorn of the well-informed, the disrespect of the media, the satirical comment of the comedian, the contempt of those who wish to see good law reach the statute book, and—perhaps although of little importance—the ultimate despair of our wives. On this matter as much as any other, will the House this evening give clear guidance to the business managers?

Mr. A. J. Beith: I cannot speak on this subject without paying a heartfelt tribute to the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), who has worked so zealously as Chairman of the Committee on which I used to serve, undeterred by the shabby way in which the Committee has been treated. He referred to the fact that the payroll vote was wheeled out on a one-line Whip to defeat some major proposals and to the fact that reports have not been debated. Through all that he kept the Committee at work producing more proposals on a wide range of subjects. The House owes him a considerable debt for the work that he has done and continues to do.
I was disappointed by the speech of the Leader of the House. After a couple of hours listening to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee in public session, I thought that I had heard the most complacent of Ministers. It pains me even to imply that the Leader of the House is more complacent than the Chancellor, because I like him rather better than I do the Chancellor. However, he was totally complacent about many aspects of the procedures of the House. That can be attributed either to a lack of radical spirit or to a preference for the fact that at present the Government get their own way very nicely over far too many things.
I shall pick out some of the key points that have emerged from this great pile of reports. First, on Standing Committee procedure, the Committee produced revised proposals, after criticisms of their first proposals, designed to ensure that Bills were properly debated in Standing Committee. It is scandalous that large chunks of Bills go on to the statute book without a word of debate in Committee. The House ought not to tolerate that state of affairs, which arises at least partly because of the determination of hon. Members to demonstrate their total opposition to certain Bills. But that total opposition does not prevent their having views on what the Bills should be like if they are passed, and therefore there is a need for orderly discussion. The Government really must remove the block which, with some help from the Labour Front Bench, they have placed on sensible alternative proposals.
The Bills in the forthcoming legislative Session are enormous. For the first time I have received a Bill which runs to two volumes—the Water Bill is published in two separate volumes. There is a massive task ahead of us, and large chunks of those Bills which effect large numbers of people in Britain will never be debated in the House unless we get our procedures properly sorted out.
The proposal for Special Standing Committees was enacted by the House. It is an ideal procedure for dealing with such measures as licensing laws, Sunday trading and other issues, but it simply is not being used. I endorse the challenge of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish

(Mr. Bennett) that the Leader of the House should say now that he is willing to submit some of the Bills in this Session to Special Standing Committees.
The Committee did some excellent work on the statutory instruments procedure. That is an even bigger scandal. Year by year legislation pours out of this place which has not been the subject of any amendment procedure, or in many cases any debate whatsoever. People outside the House have to work with such legislation. I am surprised that the Leader of the House, as a qualified accountant, has not realised what a mess can be made of legislation that is not subject to a proper parliamentary scrutiny system.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments scrutinises those statutory instruments, every one of which passes through our hands? Therefore, there is some scrutiny. Can he persuade the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) to turn up more often so that she can take part in that scrutiny?

Mr. Beith: I have not been very successful in persuading the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) of late. I did not even persuade her to join my party. However, I did the hon Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments a disservice, because that Committee examines statutory instruments, not for their merits, but for their technical competence, and it does an excellent job. However, on many occasions it draws the attention of the House to failings of statutory instruments which the House does not discuss.
When the hon. Gentlemen earlier expressed some anxiety at the idea that we might remove the block that 20 hon. Members can now place on a statutory instrument going into Standing Committee, they seemed unaware that a successful placing of that block has the effect merely of ensuring that the instrument is never debated. If the 20 hon. Members rise to stop the Bill from going upstairs, there is no obligation whatsoever on the Leader of the House ever to find time for debate on the Floor of the House.
I do not accept the Leader of the House's contention that many prayers are tabled for purposes other than debate. If hon. Members want to express an opinion on something on the Order Paper, they table a substantive motion which says what they think. They do not simply put down, "That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty." That does not convey anything to anyone. It is there because there is a reason to debate an issue.
Prayers for which no time was found are listed in the Committee's report as a percentage of prayers tabled. At one time the figure used to be nil. In 1978–79 it was 28·3 per cent. It has gone up steadily. In 1985–86 it was 69·4 per cent. It is probably more now. Nearly 70 per cent. of prayers were not debated at all. That is 70 per cent. of those statutory instruments on which hon. Members have said there ought to be a debate. It is not good enough to say that there has to be a large number of hon. Members, a whole party, or the official Opposition, seeking a debate. That is not the principle on which we legislate. As long as there is any wish in the House for some procedure to be used, legislation should be subject to a procedure. It is the making of the law of the land.

Mr. Alton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way before he leaves the question of how we go about


making legislation. In the same context, does he agree that the Orders in Council procedure that applies to Northern Ireland legislation is totally inadequate because it is unamendable, and therefore leaves the House with no choice other than to vote for or against that legislation at the end of a cursory one and a half hour debate? All that that leads to is a feeling of great annoyance and anger among hon. Members representing Northern Ireland.

Mr. Beith: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I omitted to say that the recommendation that there should be at least a reasoned amendment procedure in Standing Committee is very important, because it enables a Standing Committee to give a signal that something fairly fundamental is wrong which would not lead it to throw out the measure, but which puts pressure on the Government to bring forward some alternative proposals on the Floor of the House.
The Committee made a limited recommendation, which I believe to be helpful, on private Members' legislation. It was defeated by a narrow margin of six votes to five. The proposal was that the House should, in a few limited circumstances, have the power to decide to bring the matter to a conclusion. If a Bill has had a Second Reading, been through its Committee stage and been debated for a considerable time, the House should have the power to bring the matter to a conclusion. Let us take the example of the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) last Session. It brings the House into national disrepute when there has been a national debate on a major issue, the House has debated it at great length, but a decision cannot be reached because the House is incapable of giving itself time to reach a decision.
The Government do not accept any such restraint in their business. They say that they must have their business. All that was proposed was that the House should, in a few limited circumstances, have the power to decide that an important matter should be brought to a conclusion. Last year it was abortion, another year it might be freedom of information and yet another year a measure affecting the disabled. Whatever the Bill, if there has been massive public debate and the House has gone through all the procedures necessary to bring it to Report, it is ludicrous that the House should be incapable of reaching a decision.
The issue of the parliamentary calendar is probably more for the convenience of hon. Members and those who work for the House than for anyone else. It is ludicrous that we cannot predict when the House will rise at Christmas, Easter or summer. Indeed, Opposition Members might think that it would put the Government under usefully greater pressure if they had to work to a calendar. The Committee considered the Canadian example and found Members on both sides of that very divided and contentious House thoroughly happy that such a scheme had been introduced. I have checked since that visit, because there have been quite a few political alarms and excursions in Canada. Although the timetable was not fully operated in two recent years when major issues arose—most recently, the free trade issue—the Members still felt that it was good to have a timetable, even if sometimes they went outside it.
Other issues will arise. I share the Committee's view that it would be premature to make changes designed to

suit television. After all, it is only an experiment and it has not yet taken place. I think that, in time, some procedures will appear strange—for example, the leader of the largest Opposition party can ask repeated supplementaries during Prime Minister's questions, but that opportunity is never available to the next largest Opposition party. So great a difference cannot arise because one party is larger in Parliament than the other. In time, I am sure that that will be seen to be an unfair procedure, but we shall see when we have had the television experiment.
The House will have to consider wider issues. We believe that the House does too much—it legislates for Scotland, Wales and the regions of England on matters that should be decided in those areas. The sooner that there is a Parliament in Scotland, for example, dealing with those matters, the better. The Government also do too much. They are an amazingly itchy-fingered Government. They cannot wait to get their fingers into every possible aspect of our lives and then legislate about it. When I first came to the House many Tory Members of Parliament said that, when they were in power, there would not be so much legislation. They said that it was just the Socialists who wanted to interfere all the time. They said that when the Conservative party was in power there would be a lighter legislative timetable—at least, after the first couple of years when they had the main legislation on the statute book. What a fallacy that has turned out to be. There are no fingers itchier than those of Government Ministers, and none more so than the Ministers of this Government. I am not sure that our people are the better for that, as they struggle to live with the laws that we so inadequately scrutinise.

Sir Bernard Braine: We should be thankful that, at long last, we are having this debate. It is a serious reflection on the way that we conduct our business that not until the end of 1988 are we considering valuable reports from the Select Committee on Procedure published over a period of three to four years.
I wish to direct my remarks to the second report, published in the 1986–87 Session, on the use of time on the Floor of the House and specifically to its reference to private Members' time. That is a crucial subject for hon. Members on both sides of the House, especially when the issues that they have sought to raise are of grave concern. I refer to matters with which Governments—indeed, all Governments—have felt unable to deal, such as abortion and tampering with the human embryo, both of which are concerned with the very beginnings of human life. If Governments have neither the time nor the moral courage to grapple with momentous issues of that kind, the least we can ask is that action is taken to consider the recommendations of Select Committees which have thought long and hard on the subjects and produced recommendations. Notice must be taken of the intense feeling of many hon. Members about the way in which we conduct business of this kind.
It is incomprehensible to the public how we dilly-dally and fudge important matters. Indeed, it is incomprehensible to them how it is that a private Member's Bill, which commands an overwhelming majority in the House on Second Reading and completes its Committee stage, cannot make any further progress because of deliberate, blatant sabotage by a minority of hon. Members through


the use of existing procedure. The matter was brought to a head in 1985—and one or two hon. Members have already reminded the House of this—after a private Member's motion was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden). It followed a blatant abuse of procedure, designed to block Mr. Enoch Powell's Unborn Children (Protection) Bill. Mr. Powell had introduced his Bill in December 1984. It was given a Second Reading on Friday 15 February 1985 by a large majority of 230 to 66, and it was sent to Standing Committee. It successfully completed its Committee stage and returned to the Floor of the House to begin its Report stage on Friday 3 May, when it was the second order of the day.
The first order was a non-controversial Bill on the subject of road traffic documents, which had obtained a Second Reading on the nod and spent only five minutes in Committee. Because of a determined filibuster the debate on Mr. Powell's Bill did not begin until 1 o'clock. Mr. Powell moved the closure at 2.29 pm and a vote was taken on the hostile amendment under discussion, which the supporters of the Bill won by 157 votes to 82. There was then no further time available for the Bill—the saboteurs had achieved their purpose. The Government refused to provide the necessary additional time, so only one option was left to the Bill's supporters, who felt that the will of the House should not be thwarted by a tiny minority.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kemptown drew first place in the private Members' motions ballot and announced that he would introduce a motion to give Mr. Powell's Bill extra time. Opponents of the Bill then accused its supporters of abusing the procedures of the House, ignoring the fact that their own abuse of procedure had caused the original problem. Once more, the will of the House was thwarted when, on 7 June, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) moved the writ for the Brecon and Radnor by-election and a number of Members presented petitions of a similar nature, one after the other. The private Members' motion debate was adjourned at 2.30 pm after just 15 minutes of debate. That was scandalous, and many hon. Members expected the Select Committee to deal with the matter in a realistic way.

Mr. Julian Brazier: As a new and inexperienced Member, I must say that many people of all politics and none in my constituency have said that they wonder how we can continue screaming and yelling at each other at Question Time. I have not been approached on any one issue by more people, including those who disagreed with the Life movement and with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) on the issue of abortion. People wonder how the House of Commons can stand by and allow itself to be sat on by a minority of people making a mockery out of its procedures. It is an insult to democracy.

Sir Bernard Braine: My hon. Friend speaks straight from the heart. He is right.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There have been several attacks on the procedures of the House because of the recent Bill on abortion. Will you confirm that throughout the period when that private Member's Bill was pursued in the House the Standing Orders and procedures of the House were followed? There was no abuse of procedure; there was

simply a following of procedure. To attack the procedure as being an abuse is, in fact, an implicit attack on whoever is occupying the Chair, including yourself, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I must say on that matter that the procedures were properly carried out. There was no abuse in those terms.

Sir Bernard Braine: If the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) had asked me that question through you, Mr. Speaker, I would have given him exactly the same answer. I am complaining about arrangements which caused consternation outside the House and the kind. of reaction to which my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) referred. Not only were people complaining to their Members of Parliament, but most of us who were known to be worried about it were receiving vast numbers of letters, and some right hon. and hon. Members had to face demonstrations in and outside their constituencies. There was intense anger about this issue all over the country. My hon. Friend was absolutely right. We witnessed a skilful use of existing weaknesses in our procedure. This debate is to direct attention to those weaknesses and, if possible, to get them remedied.
The Select Committee made some recommendations which I hope will be accepted by the House, namely, Nos. 22 and 23. The latter is extremely important. I am referring to like petitions, one after another, which are presented to take up the time of the House. The Committee, at paragraph 68, said:
The right to petition is undoubted.
That is a reference to the disgraceful episode on 7 June 1985, but it went on to recommend:
if presentation of petitions has not been concluded by 10 am on a Friday when private Members' bills are taken any further petitions set down for that day should be presented, as on other days of the week, immediately before the moving of the adjournment for the purpose of bringing the sitting to a conclusion.
If that recommendation were adopted now, there could not be a repetition of what happened in 1985. My complaint is that we are now in 1988 and nothing has been done about behaviour which caused intense anger up and down the country from supporters of all political parties. It is inevitably the only issue upon which the members of the Ulster Unionist party and the Nationalist Opposition in Northern Ireland are completely agreed. It is a matter which brings together hearts and minds across the political divide. It must not be treated in a trivial fashion. It is high time that the House spoke its mind on the subject, which it has not been given the opportunity to do until now.
I would suggest, too, that a private Member whose Bill is first in the debate on a private Members' day should be empowered to move the indefinite suspension of the rule to provide for unlimited debate after 10 pm. It may be argued that, once a proposal of that kind is made, it could lead to all-night sittings, but I do not think so. In the main, the House is composed of reasonable people. The mere threat of a filibuster would soon be removed by the suspension of the 10 o'clock rule. Working on the assumption that each group of amendments would take one and a half hours to debate, it would take a large selection of amendments to force the House to sit all night.

Mr. William Powell: Are not filibusters which occur on the Floor of the House far more likely to occur in the middle of the night than before 10 o'clock? If there is a suspension of the 10 o'clock rule, it is likely that there


will be some very long filibusters by hon. Members who are opposed to the measure that its supporters are trying to advance.

Sir Bernard Braine: Let us make some progress in the matter. Of course, one can raise objections of that kind, but I feel that, once it is seen that the House wishes action to be taken, the message will be received.

Mr. Alton: I entirely agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has been saying. The truth is that there would be votes on closures after one and a half hours, whether it was in the middle of the night or at any other time, and the House could then make progress. Does he agree that it brings us into disrepute when 296 Members can give a Bill a Second Reading, and we can spend 30 hours considering matters in Committee—and we even completed our debate on Report of my own private Member's Bill—but then, in the middle of voting on Report, the clock can strike 2.30 pm and prevent the House from taking any further decision? Does he agree that that makes a mockery of the word "democracy"?

Sir Bernard Braine: Of course, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) is right, and I would advise my dear friend to note that he is a former Chief Whip. I have been here for many years and I have served in Committees all through the night, so I know how the system works. I feel that it is disgraceful for the House to be embroiled, as it has been, by such filibustering within the rules. I believe that, if we made these simple reforms, the message would be delivered. However, there are ways and means of dealing with those who seek to speak right through the night.

Mr. Frank Haynes: I have listened to the Father of the House and I am getting his message very clearly. However, it appears that he is basing his argument on one Bill, because that Bill was controversial. There were many hon. Members in the Chamber on that day, and I believe that Members speak in the House on behalf of their constituents. When they want to get in, they contribute. I contributed for 23 minutes the other night because I believed that it was necessary. So the filibustering, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, is a load of rubbish.

Sir Bernard Braine: I shall not pursue that. The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes), for whom normally I have considerable affection, is entitled to his opinion.

Mr. Alton: rose—

Sir Bernard Braine: No, I shall not give way. Other hon. Members wish to contribute and I wish now to move to my conclusion.
I want to make a subtle suggestion to my right hon. Friend. I believe that my proposal would assist the Government because it would prevent them from being pressurised—often by their Back Benchers—as they have been and as they will be in the future if there is no reform, into finding additional parliamentary time for a particular Bill. It would also enable the Government to remain strictly neutral towards that Bill. I suggest that the matter should be left to the good sense of the House. For example, since 1975 the majority of hon. Members have wanted to see an end to late abortion and also to abortion virtually on demand, which the supporters of the 1967 Act claimed

was never their intention to encourage. It is an outrage that a group of hon. Members who sought to amend the law, in keeping with the original intention of Parliament in 1967, should be denied that right by outdated and undemocratic procedures. It is time for good sense and fairness to prevail. It is time for change.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Before offering any comments on the procedural reforms before the House, I must express the view that the arrival of television, which is a development that I have opposed and still oppose, will precipitate a whole series of procedural reforms.
The Procedure Committee's reforms that we are examining tonight were all arrived at without any informed consideration of the advent of television, because we were not in a position to do that. A number of the proposed reforms that we have made would have been markedly different if they had been considered in the context of televised proceedings. My view, and I have expressed it in the Procedure Committee, is that, on a number of fronts, we should suspend the amendment of procedure pending the completion of the six-month trial period—if that ever takes place. I hope that it will not.
Our second report of 1985–86 dealt with the allocation of time. I believe that timetabling is correct. From a former position of supporting delay in Committee as a tactic—probably, in truth, it was no more than an inability to budget my own time effectively following my first election to the House—I have moved to a position of outright opposition to the tactic. It is a meaningless and senseless exercise. It is a delusion because, in practice, the Whips have complete control of the timetable. We never create a major obstruction to the Government's programme by using such tactics. Over the years I have sat on many Standing Committees and I have never seen a Bill delayed beyond the date set by the Government. Furthermore, few outside even know what is happening, apart from the lobbies, union observers and too-easily-impressed party activists who are duped into believing that some importance is attached to the exercise.
It is important to retain the right to delay on Report. The loss of a day on Report, or even an overnight debate, is invariably well reported. It is an indication of effective opposition, whether it be a Government rebellion or an Opposition attack. It shows Parliament at its best.
Since the Select Committee last examined the question of shorter speeches, the House has resolved to allow access to television. There can be no doubt that this development will result in demands from Back Benchers for television exposure. For a start, regional coverage of activities on the Floor will turn out to be far more important than national coverage, certainly for the mere mortals amongst us. There will be a marked shift in the weighting of speeches from national to local concerns. The incidence of national coverage for the average Back Bencher will be minimal, whereas regional coverage will become extensive, if only because it offers cheap television for the new franchises under the financial pressure in the new round.
Hon. Members will be in search of a slot, and that can only mean far greater numbers of Members in search of Floor time, and therefore heavy lists for the Speaker to


consider. Pressure for shorter speeches is inevitable, and the arrangements approved on 27 February 1986 will be seen as minimal concessions.
The extension of the restriction on Second Readings to full Opposition day debate and full day debates on Government motions has been the subject of an order for the past two Sessions. The Select Committee has proposed the adoption of a permament Standing Order, but I do not believe that that recommendation goes far enough.
There is no reason why nearly all speeches should not be subject to the 10-minute restriction, apart from those by party spokesmen or those by Members moving motions, amendments or new clauses. Such a restriction could endure for most of the parliamentary day from the commencement of public business to the commencement of the Adjournment debate. Such a restriction could be perceived by some as unreasonable and burdensome. However, we should recall that the Speaker would have discretion and, on the desired proportion of our business that was not the subject of pressure, he or she could exercise that discretion.
The only area of difficulty is the Report stage of a Bill. I believe that such business should be exempt from procedural restriction. The Report stage could be the subject of self-regulation prompted by the Whips, who, under conditions of televising, will acquire substantial new influence over events.
Paragraph 5 of the Committee's third report of 1985–86 entered some interesting observations on the value of interventions and the use of prepared speeches. Prepared speeches in the form of written statements, such as the one that I am giving tonight, which are read into the record will make for poor television. I am sure that that will mean changes for many hon. Members.
Interventions are much more of a problem, because they are often crucial to effective debate. I have thought long and hard on this matter and have concluded that, if we do have a 10-minute limit, speakers should not be penalised because of interventions. They should be awarded additional time, perhaps as much as a minute or two. At this stage this proposition may seem a bit sloppy, but I can only reiterate the view that if television comes in it will transform the Chamber and the nature of debate.
I also agree with the recommendation to wind up business in Committee at 10 pm, for the reasons outlined.
The other principal recommendation, which provides for the use of a Business Sub-Committe to fix a "fair terminal date", is extremely complicated. I am not sure that it would work in practice. The proposition appears to provide for a series of negotiated and renegotiated target "terminal dates" for proceedings in Standing Committee. I believe that the terminal date timetabling of Bills, under an alternative option that I am proposing, could be negotiated at Chief Whip level—dependent on arrangements—and, if necessary, occasionally with official Opposition and Government spokesmen in attendance.
The agreement could then be referred to the Business Sub-Committee as proposed in the report for the timetabling of clauses. The cynic, indeed the realist, may argue that the effect of giving the Business Sub-Committee overall control of the "terminal date" would still, under my system, leave the Whips in charge of negotiations and recommendations to Committee. If that is the case, why go through the motions of the Select Committee's recommendations?
On a number of occasions I have referred to the rights of Privy Councillors. Our third report of 1985–86 on shorter speeches failed to tackle the question of the rights of Privy Councillors. According to my informants who were on the Committee at that time, the matter was not even raised during the deliberations.

Sir Bernard Braine: It was.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Forgive me if I am wrong.
Nevertheless, consideration of this matter is an important issue in the light of televising the House. Some of us refuse to accept that Members without portfolios who are Privy Councillors have any greater right to be called in debate than others who equally lack portfolios. I doubt that they have the right even to be called earlier.
With the advent of television, this matter will acquire a new importance. Some of us, certainly I for one, will set about restructuring that privilege. We shall use procedure to secure its removal. I believe that the ending of the privilege will come through an initiative in the Procedure Committee in response to pressure on the Floor of the House. This matter should equally surface as an item on the agenda to be considered by the Select Committee on Televising of Proceedings of the House, as it relates to fair play in the allocation of time and opportunities to Members. If my nomination to the Select Committee on Televising of Proceedings of the House had not been blocked, I should have dealt with that matter.
My soundings among Conservatives do not suggest any great support for this form of Member advantage and privilege. In fact, a number of Conservatives have privately expressed to me their concern about the possible abuse of Privy Councillor privilege on their Benches. One Conservative Back Bencher referred to a Privy Council hoard on his Benches, comprised of people who are not the Prime Minister's most impassioned admirers.
Some of my cynical hon. Friends might say, "Leave it to them." That has never been my view. The whingeing right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) has never done a blind bit of good for the Labour party. On the contrary, he has only served to convince liberal Tories that they still have a voice at Westminster. Certainly such dissidents grab the headlines and make it more difficult for the Opposition to be seen to be spearheading opposition. I conclude with the view that. Privy Councillors will fight hard to defend the indefensible, but they must be beaten.

Mr. Ian Bruce: It seems wrong that there is no equality among right hon. and hon. Members. Being a very junior Member I have less chance of speaking, on behalf of my constituents, even though they are clearly as important as those of a Privy Councillor.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: We are all born equal and should all be treated as equals in this Chamber. The problem is that we are not, and I do not blame you, Mr. Speaker, for that—it is precedent.
I turn to public Bill procedure. Apart from the question of timetabling, there is in the second report of 1984–85 a number of recommendations awaiting debate. Among them is one for reconvening Standing Committees to dispense of undertakings given by Ministers—to which reference was made by our Chairman, and I may say that he has been a very good Chairman—and for the approval of consequential and drafting amendments. It was felt that


the recommendation for reconvening Standing Committees would reduce the amount of business to be dealt with on Report.
No doubt there are times when such an arrangement would be helpful, but at others it could be positively unhelpful to the House, which, wishing to debate highly important and contentious legislation, might find that Mr. Speaker's selection of amendments denied debates on issues that the Government had carefully manoeuvred into Committee and possibly away from the cameras.
I come now to the parliamentary calendar. I have few words to express on the subject, having been elected to the Select Committee on Procedure after its consideration. I admit to prejudice against the Canadian precedent that the Committee examined. The position in respect of the Scots must be mentioned. It is untenable, and the recommendation in paragraph 3 of the first report 1986–87 that the House should rise not later than 21 July would be a useful and much needed procedural reform. However, not even that would fully deal with the problems of Scottish Members. The timing of party conferences precludes the earlier resumption of hostilities at the end of the summer recess, but that need not be the case. We have the opportunity to reform, and paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the report argue the case very persuasively.
As to use of time on the Floor of the House, the report makes reference to private Members' Bills procedure and the availability of time to right hon. and hon. Members wishing to raise matters of a topical nature. The House will not need much prompting to recognise my objectives. Although it may be said that there are times when a Labour-sponsored private Member's Bill could benefit from the prolonged debate that our proposals recommend, the present position is outrageous—although I fully understand that the beneficiaries of such a procedural warp may feel pleased with the current arrangements. However, in all natural justice they are defending the indefensible.
The argument surfaced in the Committee in all its dishonesty. It had more to do with the arguments about abortion and the embryo than about parliamentary procedure. Those right hon. and hon. Members who sat on the Committee know what I am talking about. It does not augur well for objective discussion of Back-Bench power. When that matter is finally debated on the Floor of the House, I suspect that matters will take a similar turn. It will be interesting to know the position taken by the Leader of the House. Will he propose a reasonable and just approach, defending the rights of Back Benchers in the finest traditions of the House of Commons, or will he oppose our recommendations for tactical reasons? On the last occasion, he always seemed to bring, bear or carry the will of the Prime Minister on these matters to the House of Commons. I am not convinced that he is utterly objective. I know that he will object to my comments, but that remains my view, and I am sure that I am correct.
I understand my own party's difficulty, but hope that the shadow Cabinet will resolve not to oppose but to ignore the recommendation in question and will remain neutral—if it is necessary for the shadow Cabinet to take a decision. Such an approach may not be in the finest traditions, but we should beware of spurious opposition. As the Committee points out in paragraph 61, the

Government's progress with Bills is not terminated by Big Ben at 10 o'clock; they simply table a motion to suspend the 10 o'clock rule. No matter what the strength of opposition, the Government are likely to clear the Report stage without much difficulty.
A switch from Friday to Monday for private Members' Bills could possibly secure for them an additional one and a half hours' debate or more. The four half days otherwise given over to private Members' Bills under present arrangements would be consolidated into two full Friday debates. It will be seen from the report that discussion took place on the right of a right hon. or hon. Member to move a business motion at 2.30 pm, providing for additional time after 10 o'clock on private Members' Bills on Mondays. That would transform the chance of a Bill clearing the hurdle of the Report stage. It would mean all-night debates on two private Members' Bills if there had been resistance to their passage, but if there are heated arguments on private Members' Bills, why should the House not sit all night on Monday? If that is the time that it takes to debate contentious legislation, and if it occurs only once or twice a year, we should be willing to afford that time. I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends that we are willing to turn up if we can debate a Report stage overnight and attempt to delay the introduction of legislation and bust the 2.30 pm timetable for the following day. If the motivation exists to do that, it should equally exist to allow proper debate of contentious issues.

Sir Peter Emery: Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear that, in order to do that, a right hon. or hon. Member must still carry his motion with majority support in a Division? It is not a simple matter, but, in fairness, a right hon. or hon. Member must have the support of the House for such a motion.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I shall omit another point that I had wished to raise and turn to the matter of prime time and debating opportunities, which is also dealt with in the second report of 1986–87.
Televising the House has wide implications for prime time. The organisation of Back Benchers on theme issues will require the development of considerable expertise in the Whips' Office. I feel sure that it will respond positively. The Opposition's Whips' Office will certainly do so, just as I expect that of the Government will. I understand that the Select Committee on Televising of Proceedings of the House visited Canada to see for itself the one-minute speech procedure. I am led to believe that it is appalling and trivialises issues. However, there is a need for a slot to privide an opportunity for important and topical issues to be raised briefly. The use of the Standing Order No. 20 procedure is an indication of the demand, and that is recognised in the report.
The problem is that the report has produced an ineffective compromise. It provides for two additional Adjournment debates each week, but at what cost? I foresee the loss of private notice questions and of statements in prime time in favour of mini-Adjournment debates answered by Ministers in low-profile time after 10 o'clock, and without the right to question the Minister. The danger is to be found where the recommendation refers to "topical concern" and dissatisfaction with replies, enabling "notice" to be given "for the following day". I alert my colleagues to the danger inherent in that new


procedure, which could prove disastrous for Back Benchers. My inclination is to oppose it, although I shall listen with interest to any counter arguments.
The House wil note that I entered a caveat in the form of an amendment to the report. Again, I failed. Some hon. Members not of my political view may have seen advantage. Also among the amendments tabled was my counter proposition, which extracted no support. My amendment did not provide for a ministerial response. I argued that in granting a five-minute Adjournment debate Mr. Speaker could by practice call a Conservative Back Bencher last in the debate. He or she would act as a sweep.
That approach might be novel, but it would certainly have a marked effect on late-night debates, helping to keep the Government on their mettle and fully accountable. It would provide an excellent opportunity for regional television, in an odd way helping to reassert the national context in which the House debates in ordinary time by providing a regional slot, but it would also prevent Ministers from going to the Dispatch Box on what would in effect be 24 or 48-hour notice debates. I believe that you, Mr. Speaker, would find pressure being exerted on you not to grant PNQs, but to ensure that they fell within the mini-Adjournment debates.
I have spoken for 19 minutes. Perhaps I have overshot my time, but I should have liked to talk about a number of other matters. I hope that no precipitate action will be taken, and that no procedural reforms will be introduced in the coming months before the television cameras come in. If television is allowed in, it will transform this place. We shall oppose it, but if introduced it might mean very different reforms.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: More than three and a half years after the Select Committee on Procedure produced its report "Public Bill Procedure", we are not debating motions to implement any part of it. Once again we are debating on a motion to adjourn; sometimes it is a motion to take note. Three weeks ago, our report was not even available when I tried to obtain a copy. I see that it has been hastily reproduced in almost legible condition by some process other than printing, presumably for this debate, but that is an indication of how much time has already passed since its production.
Some years ago, Mr. Speaker, I asked the Accountant of the House who authorised the expenditure of Select Committees taking evidence outside Westminster but within the United Kingdom. As he could not give me the answer, the matter went to your predecessor, Mr. Speaker Thomas. He and the Accountant had to fall back on a "take note" motion—not a motion to approve—concerning a Procedure Committee report of many years ago. That is the state to which our proceedings have deteriorated. It is lamentable that, even after such a lapse of time, there should be no proposals on which the House can make a decision.
Much emotional energy has been expended on private Bill procedure. I think that an aspect of the fate of the Abortion (Amendment) Bill has a lesson for us. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who was strongly in favour of the Bill, said that it received a large majority on Second Reading. So it did, but not in the form in which it went on Report. You, Mr. Speaker, were put in an impossible position. The Standing Committee had

inserted a provision which, had it been in the Bill on Second Reading, might have prevented it from receiving a Second Reading. Under that provision, if a woman had been impregnated in the course of a rape, she could nevertheless be denied an abortion.
I understand the position in which you found yourself, Mr. Speaker. If you had given the House the opportunity to debate a provision that many regarded as iniquitous, it would have meant selecting another amendment. You would then have been accused in certain quarters of killing the Bill by selecting too many amendments. On the other hand, not to debate that provision—to which the Ho use had never agreed on Second Reading—meant that time was running out without any possibility of debating a crucial provision. The sponsors and supporters of the Bill never referred to that when they appeared on television saying how abusive were the proceedings of the House. The promoters of private Members' Bills need to adopt a discipline: all the major ingredients should be in a Bill when it is presented for its Second Reading. Such tricks should not be played on the House.
The composition of the Standing Committee reflects the vote on Second Reading. A favourable Committee can be obtained if provisions on which a majority would not be obtained are not put in before the Committee stage. The House is then denied the opportunity of debating a major provision on the last possible occasion before Third Reading. In such circumstances, among those who are put in an impossible position is the occupant of the Chair.

Sir Bernard Braine: rose—

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I shall not give way to the Father of the House. Too much time—and time is running out—has been spent in discussing the Abortion (Amendment) Bill, although it was necessary for me to allude to it because it illuminates an aspect of private Bill procedure.

Sir Bernard Braine: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I shall give way when I reach the moment to do so, which has not yet arrived.
The Abortion (Amendment) Bill illuminates the obligations that must repose with those who put forward private Members' Bills within whatever constraints of time apply—and there will always be constraints. I shall now give way to the Father of the House.

Sir Bernard Braine: My hon. Friend must not mislead the House. He made a perfectly sound point in his general observations about a different Bill coming to the House at a later stage, but he was wrong in this instance. The Bill's sponsors had decided to take note of speeches made on Second Reading which asked for the Bill to be amended. The amendments were moved by sponsors of the Bill, the aim being to bring back to the House a Bill that had taken account of views expressed on Second Reading. To that extent, the Bill might be regarded as having been improved; it was certainly more sensitive to the feelings of the House. It is wrong to suggest that Mr. Speaker was put in an impossible position. Mr. Speaker presides over a legislative process that allows for amendment.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: If new provisions of a highly contentious nature are inserted into a private Members' Bill in Committee, the sponsors must be naive beyond all


possibility if they do not realise that they are going to present the Chair on Report with an impossible dilemma—a dilemma of their making.
I now leave private Members' Bill procedure because I am concerned about the three-and-a-half-year-old report on public Bill procedure that we can just read in its present form. We suggested that there should be more use of Special Standing Committees. That is because the House often legislates on technical matters, with its mind unclouded by knowledge. That is why the Procedure Committee recommended the introduction of that procedure in the first place.
It is one thing to have the procedure—extant as a possibility in Standing Orders—but it does not do anybody very much good if the Government do not make use of the procedure that is extant in Standing Orders. My plea is that it should be more used. I believe that the time spent in Standing Committee on a Bill would then be more tightly focused and more productive, as it would produce good legislation that did not have unintended consequences.
One of the objectives of a Standing Committee on a Bill is to ensure that the Bill achieves the consequences that were intended and does not have consequences that were unintended. One of the virtues of the Special Standing Committee procedure is that those who are more familiar with the subject matter that will be affected by the legislation can give the benefit of their advice, not expressed in party political terms, to the House as a whole. That will also be of benefit in Committee and on Report.
I turn to a much more recent report—only a year and a half old—entitled "Use of Time on the Floor of the House". There is an old adage that nature abhors a vacuum; but nature also gives way to pressure that it cannot sustain. Unless we make more provision for dealing with urgently contentious matters, there will be abuse of the points of order procedure. We know that there has been such abuse. The Procedure Committee's objective would be not to pretend that that abuse would go away, but to see how it could reasonably be accommodated without imposing on the House and those who serve it in so many capacities an even greater and unreasonable prolongation of our sittings.
Our proposal in paragraph 76—that twice a week there should be a short emergency debate chosen by you, Mr. Speaker—was a reasonable attempt to give to the House an alternative to spurious points of order. To those who would reject it, I am bound to say, "What would you put in its place, other than abusing the rules of order?" The pressure is there for all to see and hear. If your Committee's very modest recommendation is to be rejected, Mr. Speaker, it must, in my view, only fairly be rejected in favour of a better alternative, not in favour of nothing whatever.
Reference has already been made to a number of other aspects, but other hon. Members want to speak in the debate, which is already two thirds gone. Therefore, I must ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, whose interest in procedure I know to be authentic, to give us time to take decisions about procedural matters, rather than just to debate them either on a take-note basis or in Adjournment debates. At the end of the day, however, I have this baleful message for him. However often the

Select Committee on Procedure sits to try to find ways by means of which the House does not sit at ridiculous hours, when it cannot perform its task appropriately or efficiently, and however many reports it produces, we shall be swamped by legislation unless there is discipline over the introduction of legislation. That, I am afraid, follows, and it is something that only the Cabinet can remedy. It is not within the control of Back-Bench Members of the House.
I used the word "legislation" because about 15 years ago I introduced a Bill, the Amendment of Statutory Instruments Bill. Each year I have weighed on the kitchen scales the bound volumes of Acts of Parliament of the last Session and the bound volumes of statutory instruments. The latter got remorselessly heavier as compared to the former, as well as in absolute terms. The proportion of our legislation which the House is powerless to alter increases each year. Nothing will convince me that it is not the least skilful parliamentary draftsmen who are put on to drafting secondary legislation, because they know that their Minister will not have to defend it against amendments in Committee. Naturally, the more skilled ones are put on to drafting Bills, and the less skilled on to statutory instruments. The absolute bottom of the bucket are put on to drafting legislation subject to the negative resolution procedure, which will probably never come before the House at all for shortage of time.
The House will not have done its task, however hard its Select Committee works, until it grasps the nettle of having a process for amending statutory instruments. Therefore, our first tentative step towards that is recommending a reasoned amendment to be within the power of the appropriate Statutory Instrument Committee. It is a tiny step and a halting one, but for heaven's sake, let us take it.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I agree with the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) about the desirability of the House being able to amend statutory instruments. That would be very helpful when we are trying to redress power.
I pay tribute to the work of the Procedure Committee, but it is sometimes too concerned with formal procedures and has not paid enough attention to the informal procedures which run parallel to the formal ones. Members of the Committee have illustrated that tonight by complaining that there has been no opportunity to debate their reports in the House.
Members of the Procedure Committee, almost all of whom are here, with a small number of others, must understand that, if we are to amend the House's procedures, we have to ensure that all 650 Members are involved. Although at least one of the Select Committee's reports is out of print and difficult to get hold of, my impression is that most hon. Members have not looked at its reports. Speaking to a cross-section of hon. Members this week to find out what was to be debated tonight and their views on the subject did not lead to enlightenment for me.
The first problem for the Procedure Committee is to ensure that its reports are fully debated in the informal atmosphere in the House before there is a formal debate. I fear that, with many of its proposals, it has not overcome that first hurdle and got a majority of hon. Members to consider what it proposes.
I am a little worried about the parliamentary calendar. An informal calendar already exists, but the problem will not be solved by making it formal. The problem is that the calendar is wrong. If we make the informal calendar formal, we will solve nothing. We will merely give the Opposition an opportunity to say, "We fought very hard and we have wrecked the calendar again this year." That is not much use. The fundamental thing to which the report draws attention is the view that the House should not sit in July.
We ought to recognise, particularly as the average age of hon. Members has got younger, that hon. Members ought to have the right to go away on holiday with their families in July and not have to take their children away from school. The problem is especially acute in Scotland. It is not a matter of a formal or informal calendar, but of the House having the will to reorganise its time so that it does not sit in that part of July.
I now turn to the question whether we should timetable Bills from the start. Let us be clear that, at present, the right to timetable Bills rests with the Opposition when the Bill starts off. In my experience, the Opposition make a good attempt to timetable the Bill effectively. Although it has been argued that some long Bills have gone through the House with discussion on only the first one or two clauses, I believe that, on the whole, those are exceptions. If one looks at the political content of such a Bill, one realises that most of the political issues can be debated on the early clauses. The majority of Bills that go through the House—having been timetabled in effect by the Opposition—go through with reasonable scrutiny, considering the difficulties.
If we chose to have early timetabling for Bills, a series of abuses might arise. I have served on a large number of Committees and I have found amendment races particularly obnoxious. It is important that we should debate amendments at the right place in the Bill. If one has a timetable for amendments, there is a race to table the first amendment. If one tables an amendment to clause 27, for example, and the amendment says, "Insert at the beginning of the clause 'subject to subsection (1)(a)'", someone else will try to table an amendment that will be debated even earlier and that does not lead to orderly debate.
It would be a retrograde step for the House if, as a matter of principle, responsibility for timetabling Bills was handed over from the Opposition to, in effect, the Government. If a Committee which had a majority of Government Members was appointed to timetable Bills, that is what we would be doing. If the Procedure Committee was suggesting that the responsibility should be handed over to a Committee composed of a majority of Opposition Members, I would not complain, but I am sure that Ministers would not be happy with that. I should not be happy about giving the Government more power over timetabling.
I shall now deal with the Committee's report on early-day motions. It seems that the House has not been well served by some of the trivial early-day motions that have appeared on the Order Paper, but the main point is that early-day motions are a public way of reflecting the informal activities of the House. It is not easy to tell constituents that one has had a word with the Minister and pressed the point: it does not sound convincing. Putting one's name on an early-day motion is a simple process, but it is a way of giving some form to the series of informal

processes that go on in the House. We often talk about the Division Lobbies, the Members' Lobby and Central Lobby, but we should realise that much of the process of Parliament is the informal lobbying that goes on. Early-day motions offer an opportunity for a formal way of dealing with that informal activity. That is not too high a price to pay.
It was suggested earlier that hon. Members who are suspended should suffer a longer period of suspension than that which is normally imposed. We should be careful about that, because, if suspensions were longer, we should be using the majority in the House to censure individual Members. Hon. Members should be accountable to their constituents and not too firmly accountable to the majority in the House. If suspensions were longer, they would be far more controversial and would cause more problems.
I ask the Leader of the House to use the Special Standing Committee procedure more frequently. I suggest that the forthcoming legislation on children would be a good opportunity to use that procedure.
I welcome the opportunity to amend statutory instruments. At present, we are too often prepared to put into primary legislation the power for the Secretary of State to do things by order and by regulation. If the House were less willing to give Ministers that power in the first place, fewer problems would develop.
Finally, I should like the Leader of the House to think about the problems that occur with statements, especially if our proceedings are to be televised. It is not a satisfactory procedure for embargoed copies of White Papers and other documents to be given out to the lobby and to other newspaper correspondents, sometimes 24 hours beforehand and often on the morning of the day on which the statement is to be made, and then for Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen and minority parties to receive the same statements and documents perhaps just half an hour or an hour before the statement is made, but no of her Members being able even to get hold of a copy until after the statement has been made.
If it is reasonable for journalists to be sufficiently briefed on matters so that they can write about them for the following morning's newspapers, it is reasonable that hon. Members should have the same opportunity to read the documents and ask questions about them. There is the procedure of the statement being given in the House, but there is often a wait of several weeks or months—sometimes even years—before there is a further opportunity to discuss those matters. It should be possible for hon. Members to receive such documents on at least the same terms as journalists.
There should be far more debate about most of the proceedings of the Select Committee on Procedure. Such debate should occur in an informal atmosphere first, and once there is a clear majority in the House for change, we should proceed with the legislation. We should not bemoan the fact that such things are not debated on the Floor of the House. What we should bemoan is the fact that the Procedure Committee has not convinced sufficient hon. Members to take an interest in its reports for there to be a full and frank informal debate before we get to the stage at which we should vote.

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I have been busy this evening, which is why I missed the first part


of the debate. I have been trying to win Weybridge for the Labour party, which is why I wrote to you. Could you appeal to hon. Members to make their contributions brief so that I can get in?

Mr. Speaker: I was about to rise to my feet when the hon. Gentleman gazumped me to say that I understand that the shadow Leader of the House will seek to catch my eye at about a quarter to 10. Quite a number of hon. Members have not yet spoken—some of whom served on the Committee—but I think it is quite important in such a debate that Members who did not serve on the Committee are also called to speak so that we may have their views as well.

Sir Ian Lloyd: I hope that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) will forgive me if I do not follow too closely the specific points that he made. This is one of our more interesting debates, in which the currents of controversy move not across the Floor of the House like forked lightning, but up and down the Benches on either side rather like sheet lightning. The balance of opinion is sometimes rather interesting, if much more difficult to predict than usual. I shall resist the temptation to enter into the important, but in some ways private, fight that the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir. B. Braine), has reinstated this evening.
However, I shall permit myself one reflection on the important procedural point that has been discussed in considerable depth. If the exploitation of procedure within the rules of order—it must always be within the rules of order because that is a fundamental premise—to oppose legitimate proposals, whether in the form of legislation or otherwise, is to be ruled out, we face a difficult problem. Naturally, like so many other hon. Members of all parties, I dislike such exploitation whenever it occurs. Furthermore, the public do not understand it and I do not think that they will ever. We must be extremely careful before we tighten the straitjacket of procedure on this House so severely that the patient—in this case Parliament—is suffocated. Having said that, I realise that to some extent I am undermining my own case on a number of the other points that I hope to make as briefly as I can.
I am sure that the whole House is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) for his report—indeed, for all his serious reports. I have read most of them this afternoon and find myself in considerable agreement with a large proportion of their recommendations.
I share the regret of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) that we are not debating specific proposals placed before the House for decision. As is so often the case, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House showed his usual courtesy and consideration and raised a fundamental point about procedure—the behaviour of hon. Members. My perspective is nowhere near as long as that of the Leader of the House or as long as that of many other hon. Members, but perhaps it is a little longer than the perspective of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
A long perspective does not necessarily confer authority, except in your case, Mr. Speaker, because you

sit in the House for thousands of hours a year. Perhaps you spend more time in it than any other hon. Member, and therefore your perspective gives you special authority. Within the last few years the standard of behaviour in the House has declined. There has been a decline in courtesy, in good manners and, perhaps, a decline in that rarest of all commodities in this Chamber, wit.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Sir Ian Lloyd: The hon. Member for Newham. North-West (Mr. Banks) is an exemplar of wit.

Mr. Banks: I have with me a book by Sir Alexander Mackintosh entitled, "Echoes of Big Ben." It says:
I trembled for the fame and fate of Parliament as I witnessed the extremely violent, disgraceful scene, in July, 1893, of hon. Members hitting each other.
The hon. Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) has been in the House for a long time. Can he tell us when hon. Members last hit each other? That certainly puts into perspective the rather eccentric behaviour of my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) who left the House earlier today describing hon. Members as disciples of Onan and making strange gestures to Mr. Speaker.

Sir Ian Lloyd: Hon. Members hitting each other is not within my experience, and I hope that it will never be. It is always a little dangerous to quote from a decade in which, I think, Irish Members came here in an attempt to destroy Parliament. Fortunately for all of us, they failed. I will not go as far as to say that such an objective underlay the behaviour that we have seen, but Parliament serves no purpose whatever if none of us modifies our views or assumptions. Surely we come to the House to listen and to enlarge our experience and knowledge and, occasionally, to modify our assumptions and opinions. We cannot do that if we can never hear what anyone is saying.
I shall describe two phenomena which I am sure are familiar to all hon. Members. The House contains what I call the "What about" mob. That mob consists of hon. Members who say, "What about the IMF? What about inflation? What about unemployment, nurses and miners?" Such interventions are not worthy of a soap box debate in Hyde park and are singularly unworthy of the House. Surely we can bring to our debates qualities and standards better than, "What about?" Such behaviour denigrates and destroys what we are trying to do.
The other phenomenon is the finger-pointing mafia. Some hon. Members seem to think that their intellectual arguments are enhanced by stabbing their fingers at Front-Bench spokesmen. That is bad mannered and does not add to the point or force of the argument. The less we see of it the better and the more Parliament will be pleased. When television arrives in due course the public will not want to see such behaviour because they would not like it at all.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The hon. Gentlemen is complaining about mafia-like people pointing their fingers at the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When I stand up with my hands in my pockets it is more than likely that one of the Tory yobbos from the goose-stepping tendency will tell me to take my hands out of my pockets. I am in a bit of a dilemma about what to do. If I were concerned about behaviour in this place, I would not be concerned about people making a point on


behalf of their class. I would be concerned about those who come trotting in here half drunk or half sober, whatever the case may be, coming out of the 16 bars, or trotting off on business trips to South Africa, paid for by the Botha Government. I regard that as much more important than somebody who has his hands in his pockets or who is poking a finger at others when he speaks.

Sir Ian Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand my point. I sympathise with him if he is being shouted at by Members who tell him to take his hands out of his pockets, but I am not concerned about people who come here half sober or half drunk. I am much more concerned about people who come here half-witted.
The report on the calendar is interesting. It tells us that it is now over 10 years since the House had two weeks' recess at Easter or Whitsun, and the proposal that it makes for setting the calendar recommends that we should have a least one week at Easter and one week at Whitsun. I disagree with the Committee on that point. It is time that we became somewhat more generous to ourselves, particularly at Whitsun. I do not know what the opinion of the House is on that question, but I should happily trade 10 days in October for five additional days at Whitsun, and I sense that that finds some support in the House.
The real difficulty is this. We shall find more time—time lies at the heart of Parliament and much that we do here—if we spend a little more effort in trying to stop the waste of it. Parliamentary time, like energy, is something which is best found by conserving it. For example, I regard the second Division last night as a conspicuous example of the waste of 20 minutes of parliamentary time. It proved nothing to anyone and by the most simple procedural device, every point could have been satisfied. You, Mr. Speaker, could have asked the Liberals whether they would be willing to record their 20 votes against the majority. All that would have been needed would have been a yes, the Division would have been recorded and the great British public would have been none the wiser, or all the wiser. There would have been no fundamental difference to what we were doing.
Other points, which I wish to make as quickly as possible, also concern time. In the report on the use of time on the Floor of the House, the key conclusion is that in paragraph 2, which states:
Compared with legislative bodies in other large democracies, the House of Commons continues to sit on more days per annum than any others.
That prompts the immediate query: Are we, as a country, for that reason better governed than the other large democracies? Different sides of the House will have different opinions in answer to that question. The report concludes:
there needs to be the greatest possible efficiency in the use of the available time.
I wholeheartedly agree with that.
What are the facts? We waste time on a prodigious scale, and no more seriously than in four particular ways. The first, which has already been mentioned, is bogus points of order. We can do with far fewer of them and if, by other means, we can give hon. Members legitimate opportunities to raise legitimate points, we should do so and encourage them to do it in other ways.
Secondly, there is the tedious introduction of largely, or often, irrelevant parochial aspects and illustrations in hon.

Members' speeches. We are all guilty of that. It seldom adds much to the debate or to the quality of the argument. We could all impose a greater self-discipline there.
Thirdly, there is the tedious repetition of arguments. Theoretically, this is against the rules of order, but it is seldom that anyone is pulled up for tedious repetition. We are all guilty of it and we should all do it less frequently. We are all guilty of introducing, ad nauseam, fallacies and assumptions that cannot be sustained.
Fourthly, there is the question of voting. Here lies the greatest possible scope. We do not practise what I believe is widely practised now in all other managerial systems outside and possibly even inside politics. That is known as management by exception. The vote that matters is that which is decided by the electorate once every four to five years. That is the vote that makes the greatest impact on the nation and its affairs. Very occasionally, and particularly if the balance between the governing party and the Opposition is small, a vote is challenged or altered by a profound disagreement within the Government or the Opposition. Occasionally, there is such a thing as a procedural ambush. That is increasingly rare, especially when the Government have a substantial majority. It can be challenged by accidental absence, for example, by a significant number of Members being delayed on a plane from Scotland to London.
However, in my humble judgment, the nation is not interested in those changes, except when Governments are threatened or defeated; that is when the parliamentary balance no longer reflects the general election ballot. Those are the divisions in which the nation is really interested. If we alter our procedures in such a way as to give the nation what it wants, which is a full and proper report on those occasions, we can save ourselves an enormous amount of time on many of the other Divisions that take place here. By and large, the media are uninterested in whether our majority is 150, 100 or 50. The evidence of this is that those Divisions are seldom reported, apart from the particular examples that I have mentioned.
We have no management by exception when we should have such management. We assume a Government majority, but we could allow far more efficient procedures to reveal variations rather than reassert meaningless totals. There are many ways of achieving that and I shall simply mention two of them. First, there are the non-electronic methods. There is no need, for example, on a second Division late at night to troop through the Division Lobbies. I believe that your discretion, Mr. Speaker, and direction to record the vote of minor parties would have achieved every objective except that of wasting time.
Where there are several Divisions and we are bound to record identical votes, we can easily amalgamate them, without prejudice to anyone, least of all the Opposition. That applies to amendments, substantive motions and Third Readings where there may be three votes one after another. We all know that, plus or minus two or three votes, the identical Division will be recorded, and that we will have wasted 50 minutes of the House's precious time, which, as the Procedure Committee admits, we need for other purposes.
Finally, I must at least mention the fact that we largely ignore the significant potential of electronic devices. It now seems possible for any hon. Member to leave a completely secure coded vote in the system, which can be withdrawn


immediately on demand or cancelled by telephone. That technical possibility may seem far-fetched, but we should consider the contribution that it could make.
Late sittings have been much discussed. The House should consider the 10 o'clock rule in a fundamental way. The Procedure Committee suggested that hon. Members do not often refer to that or vote against it, but I regard that argument as specious. We do not vote against the suspension of the 10 o'clock rule for the simple reason that we know that the Government would win every Division on that type of vote. It is rather futile as the Government would always outvote us.
I very much agree with the Study of Parliament Group's trenchant comment that
proceedings in the chamber should comprise those on which Members are most anxious to exercise their rights to attend, speak and vote.
The group concludes that
the chamber could be spared even more secondary legislation, most debates on European Community Documents and, more significantly, the remaining stages of much legislation and more Second Readings. It could therefore become the rule that business such as secondary legislation and EC Documents would always be dealt with in Committee unless specifically brought to the Floor of the House by government, by opposition parties on an Opposition Day or by backbenchers on a Private Members' day.
I heartily commend that conclusion to the House.

Mr. Graham Allen: Regardless of the political colour of the Government, our democracy is in a crisis, both within this place and outside. That is seen to be so by many outside the House because of a number of actions that the Government are taking. The same applies to those who are within the House. Throughout our society we see the overwhelming and overbearing influence that is being brought to bear both inside and outside the House. The procedures of the House, which we are now debating, are being used in a way that reflects the contempt that Governments in general, but this one in particular, hold for what is nominally the legislature.
There has been no serious attempt to reform the way in which this place works. That is because basically it works to the advantage of this Government, perhaps more than it has worked to the advantage of any Government in the past. When television cameras come into the Chamber and viewers see the way in which the Government manipulate Parliament, there will be tremendous revulsion. The same can be said of any party which forms a Government, but the Conservative party and the present Government have demonstrated so clearly the problems that a Parliament without power faces when it is faced with an Executive that exercises no restraint.
There is a great deal more that the Opposition could do to highlight the problems and to produce a serious alternative to the way in which our democracy currently does not work. Unfortunately, there are two camps within the Opposition. There are those who say, "We'll give them some stick when we get in next time. We don't want any changes because we can be just as authoritarian. We can abuse our democracy in equal measure." I do not agree with that view. Secondly, there are those who feel that, if we were to make serious changes to our processes and procedures, their little niche, speciality or maverick ability

in this, that or the other area would fall prey to a wider democracy. Both camps are wrong. I hope that tonight's debate will cause one or two of their members to think afresh about the wider values that we Socialists should promote.
We must examine the role of the House of Commons in a democracy. How do we expect the House to move forward so that it can play a serious role in our democracy? How can it extend its ability to hold Government to account? If there ever was a golden age, how can we re-invent the ability to scrutinise government? No outsider, no impartial judge, would say that we in this place effectively hold our Government to account. That can be said of Governments of whatever political colour.
Perhaps we need to go far further than the reforms proposed by the Procedure Committee in the many reports that are before us. We should move on to consider the separation of powers, a written constitution, a Bill of Rights and the wholesale reform of the judiciary before we can seriously tackle the inability of this place to hold the Government to account. That will have to wait for another debate and another day.
One of the several problems that has emerged during the debate is that a number of hon. Members have concentrated their sudden desire for procedural reform to make Parliament effective on one bad experience that they personally underwent during consideration of the Abortion (Amendment) Bill 1987. I do not believe that they do the cause of parliamentary reform any good whatsoever by suddenly discovering that there are problems with the private Member's Bill procedure and suddenly griping that there have been difficulties.

Mr. Beith: In my party, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), who intervened earlier, has argued for the past 10 or 15 years, long before his Bill came before the House, that there should be time for private Members' Bills to reach a conclusion.

Mr. Allen: I do not know about individual cases, but there certainly has not been a massive groundswell on those issues over many years. People have suddenly discovered it because of the issue that was raised last year.
Like every other debate on a Select Committee report—there have been only five on substantive motions since 1979, even though there have been almost 400 reports—after tonight's debate there will be no vote. This has merely been a talking shop exercise. If the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, will allow me, I suggest that it may be an error in the Procedure Committee reports that they contain no proposal that a specified number of Committee reports should, as of right, come back to the Floor of the House for a decision. Under such a system, a number of the hon. Gentleman's recommendations would have been voted upon. Until we link the system of Select Committees to the Floor of the House, those Committees will be divorced from real accountability and scrutiny by the Government.

Mr. Tony Banks: Why only a proportion? If the House sets up a Committee to consider something, surely that presupposes that the Committee should come back with proposals and the House should vote on them. Otherwise, what is the point of setting up the Committees in the first place?

Mr. Allen: My hon. Friend expresses his own view, and I do not wish to comment on his remarks.
Parliament is letting down democracy, as it is not fulfilling its role. Perhaps I come to this debate with some naivety as I am a new Member. However, I hope that that also means that I bring a fresher eye to this problem. I hope also that my commitment to this issue is in no doubt. It is something of a chore, I may tell the Leader of the House, to have to go to the Table Office every day to table my motions on the Order Paper, despite the welcome that I always get there. However, I have spent a year tabling my motions in an attempt, as Conservative Members said earlier, to bring this issue to the fore and get, as my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) said, a number of hon. Members interested in this area. This is not an arcane and esoteric area. It is an area of parliamentary reform which is vital to the ability of our democracy to take decisions effectively, to inform people outside, and, above all, to hold the Government to account.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Perhaps it is rather surprising that the hon. Gentleman and I, as new Members with a fresh view, share the opinion of the Privy Councillors who have spoken this evening and believe that a change in the procedure is long overdue. Surely it must be right that the Government should find time to bring forward as soon as possible substantive proposals that we can vote on to change the procedure.

Mr. Allen: The Government will not find time to change the House, given that the House serves the Government's purpose. Until the House reasserts its independence from Government, I see no prospect of these matters being brought to a decision. None the less, they must be brought to the attention of hon. Members. I have continually tabled motions which appear as remaining orders of the day. Perhaps one day Mr. Speaker will surprise me by selecting one. I hope that that happens on a day when I am in attendance—as I usually am. Please do not surprise me, Mr. Speaker, by selecting one on an odd day when I am not here.
I have proposed that speeches in all debates should be limited to 10 minutes: that is self-explanatory. They should be timed by another clock in the Chamber that can be stopped so that interventions are not taken out of the 10 minutes. That would encourage debate as hon. Members would be very willing to give way and pursue points knowing that they would not lose any time out of their 10 minutes.
The point that all hon. Members should be treated equally in debate has been touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). I fully endorse his proposals about Privy Councillors. A list of speakers should be available before each debate so that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) would not have to come back half-expecting to be called to speak tonight. He would have been able to phone in and find out, and listen at leisure when he arrived.
Timetables should be introduced for all Bills. The theory of timetables is that the Government get their Bill at the end of the day, and they know the day on which that Bill will come out of Committee. But in Committee the timetabling of the Bill should be the possession of the Opposition, and they should choose the areas to be scrutinised in greatest depth.
A number of hon. Members have mentioned dates of sittings. Special Standing Committees are becoming increasingly important. Given the cursory examination that Bills receive, there should be a period of one month between First and Second Reading so that there can be examination outside of the clauses of the Bill.
Finally, Committees of the House should be allowed to come to the Floor of the House by right to present at least one report each year so that there is a connection between the Committee system and the Floor of the House. The Leader of the House kindly raised the question of hours, so I shall not spend any time on that. Tonight's debate has been helpful, but it would be far more helpful if the Leader of the House agreed that decisions as well as speeches should be forthcoming.

Mr. Frank Dobson: I was hoping that at least one novelty would be proposed tonight. I would suggest the installation of polygraph lie detectors in both Dispatch Boxes. That would he to the advantage of the public and Back Benchers and to the disadvantage of Front Benchers on both sides. However, no such novelties have been proposed today.
If we consider what are normally regarded as the proper functions of a Parliament, we are not too bad at the redress of individual grievances; but everyone has to accept that we are not too smart at scrutinising the activities of the Executive, we are absolutely deplorable at controlling Government expenditure, and we have not been too good at producing understandable, workable laws.
During the past two or three years, it has not been the practitioners in the field who are unable to understand the law. In view of the successful court actions against the Government, particularly in local government finance and social security, it is clear that some of the Ministers who introduced the Bills did not understand them and broke the law fairly soon after they were enacted. In those circumstances, I do not think that we are doing too well in the production of understandable law.
One aspect of Parliament that tends to be ignored—the Select Committee, at least in some ways, tended to set it to one side—is our function as a place for free expression of opinion, where people are allowed to express their views and conduct campaigns within a political arena. I hope that no one will take offence when I say that I feel that the Select Committee has taken rather a managerial approach to this place, and in some sense there has been a lot of effort to depoliticise it, as if one of the Committee's objects was the smooth operation of the House. That is not always the case.
I do not want to talk about short speeches, other than to say that you, Mr. Speaker, should be empowered to impose a time limit from 6 pm to 9 pm, if you so wished, rather than from 6 pm to 8 pm or from 7 pm to 9 pm. That would definitely be an advantage.
The Select Committee made proposals for allocating time to Government Bills in Committee. In fact, not many Bills end up being guillotined—although, because of the sanguinary activities of the Leader of the House, during the last Session more Bills were guillotined than in any other Session in the history of Parliament. However, the number was still only six, so we are not reduced to guillotining Bills too frequently. Most Bills go through Committee as both sides expect; only the most


controversial of Bills do not. I am doubtful about the idea that a Committee should self-guillotine, fairly quietly and without much publicity. It is generally to the advantage of the Opposition to insist that if the Government want very controversial measures to go through quickly, at some point in the proceedings they must come to the Floor of the House and face adverse publicity.
Last Session we forced the Government to guillotine the Social Security Bill; the result was 140 column inches of newspaper coverage, mostly unfavourable to the Government. That was useful and worth while. It is a stick with which all Oppositions should be able to beat Governments, and to do so in public rather than reaching agreement upstairs.
The Select Committee recommended changes in the rules governing debates on statutory instruments. What strikes me as peculiar is that, four or five years after a Bill has been passed, no one has the faintest idea why it was thought to need the affirmative procedure. The belief is that the affirmative procedure applies to important matters and the negative procedure to less important matters. The fact is that what might appear to be important while a Bill is going through often turns out to be relatively trivial two or three years later.
The present rules for deciding whether statutory instruments should be dealt with on the Floor of the House or upstairs are probably better than the Select Committee's proposals. Much more important is the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) about the willingness of the House to allow important parts of legislation to be sloughed off into regulations when they should be on the face of the primary legislation. If we do not jib at putting such important matters into regulations rather than into primary legislation, the question whether they are dealt with on the Floor of the House or upstairs is trivial. I share the doubts of the Leader of the House about the wisdom of taking a substantial chunk of prime time at 3.30 pm for procedural wrangles about what should happen to particular statutory instruments. Neither side would benefit from such a use of parliamentary time.
A matter of much more consequence is whether it should be possible for the House to amend statutory instruments. Anyone can recognise the advantages of being able to do so. There might be a possibility—although I understand that it is not what the Select Committee is proposing—of identifying groups of extremely significant pieces of secondary legislation that could be amendable, but not to make secondary legislation in general amendable. That might go some way towards alleviating concern about the really poor level of draftsmanship to which the hon. Member for Honition (Sir P. Emery) referred.
Our present parliamentary calendar is ludicrous and has been determined by a hangover from when the House was run by country gentry. There are few of those left in the House, although there are a number of lawyers. We need an altogether different parliamentary calendar. If that necessitated the major constitutional change of shifting the party conferences to another time of year so that we could spread out our time more sensibly, perhaps we should consider doing that. Even within existing

arrangements, it would be advantageous to most people to have some kind of parliamentary calendar, rather than conduct our affairs in our present haphazard way.
It is clear that, whatever we decide about the parliamentary calendar, in the end the Government will always be able to amend it if they are desperate. I cannot see many Opposition Members saying, "By God, we've triumphed this time. We've forced them to smash the parliamentary calendar to such an extent that we shall all meet on Christmas day." That will not normally be one of our objectives.
It appears to me that it would be easier for you, Mr. Speaker, and for practically every hon. Member, if we had a calendar set out in advance, and, by and large, the Government made us stick to it.
While we have our present approach to parliamentary government, the Government will always be able to fix what happens in the Chamber. [Interruption.] I believe that the Whip has misunderstood the amount of time for which the Leader of the House has asked.
I believe that in general the propositions before us are rather managerial in their approach. In line with what my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) suggested, we need a more radical change to the way in which the House goes about its tasks, because we are still obsessed with 18th-century French ideas that in some way or another the House of Commons controls the Government.
The fact is that, once a Government have a majority, the Government control the House of Commons. As long as we fail to recognise that basic point, most of the propositions from the Procedure Committee will not have a substantial impact on what happens in the House or how we carry on our business. We need to start from an altogether different proposition. If we want the Procedure Committee to produce the radical changes in procedure which my party believes in, we must give it a more radical role altogether. We cannot criticise it for producing the propositions that are before us, because no one has asked it to be especially radical.

Mr. Wakeham: With the permission of the House, I shall say a few words.
Because of the late start to the debate and the number of Members who wished to speak, I believed that it was better not to make a substantive reply on the issues, but to hear as many hon. Members as possible. I know that a number of hon. Members did not get into the debate. The debate was held on the Adjournment so that views could be expressed, and I cannot complain if I received some pretty strong views from a number of quarters, because that was the purpose of the exercise. It is clear that virtually any change to our procedures is considered controversial by one part of the House or another. I shall seek to find some general agreement and see whether we can make some progress.
Other matters have arisen in the debate that the Select Committee on Procedure might like to consider further and to give us some guidance on.

Sir Peter Emery: Will the shadow Leader of the House come and advise us?

Mr. Wakeham: I believe that the hon. Gentleman spoke with considerable authority and experience of opposition, which is an important part of the balance of this House.
I shall study tonight's speeches carefully. I also hope that the overwhelming majority of Members who did not take part in this debate will also study them, because what we do will also depend upon them.

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Orders of the Day — Milk Quotas

10 pm

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor): I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether we could take the two motions together?

Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I regret having to make an objection to the two motions being taken together as I appreciate that the subject matters are linked not only in the form of the liquid, but because of the relationship between them. However, if we discuss the two motions together, the quality of scrutiny goes down, because we have only one and a half hours' debate on three different matters, including a possible amendment. Unless we finish the first motion within one and a half hours, we shall have double the time if we take them separately. Therefore, on the grounds of scrutiny, I object to the motions being taken together.

Mr. Speaker: We shall deal first with the motion on milk quotas.

Mr. MacGregor: I am perfectly content to take the two motions separately.
I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8108/88 on milk and milk products and of the Government's intention to pursue agreement which meets the requirements of the European Court's judgment while containing costs and ensuring that the effectiveness of milk quotas is maintained.
It is important to give the House a brief reminder of the background of this matter. In 1984, when milk quotas were first introduced, it was clear that something had to be done to deal with sharply-rising surpluses and ever-escalating spending on support for the dairy sector. The existing regime was simply not working, so the Community had to act. Quotas were not the Government's original preferred approach, but it became clear during the negotiations in autumn 1983—I was Minister of State at that time and involved in the negotiations—that quotas were the only negotiable solution for the Council of Ten Ministers, as it then was.
There are considerable disadvantages to milk quotas, and I have never hidden that fact. They involve a large and costly administrative burden for the Government and industry. Perhaps one of their biggest disadvantages is that they inhibit new entrants to the industry and inhibit entrepreneurial farmers within it. On the other hand, quotas have enabled the industry to contain its dairy problem. I say "contain" because expenditure is still high, and the dairy regime is still the most expensive in the Community.
It is true that the surpluses are largely being dealt with—the "vanishing mountains", as I have described them—and it is important for the public and hon. Members to realise that today those mountains are vanishing.
In the past year we have seen an 80 per cent. decline in the butter mountain in the United Kingdom and the skimmed milk powder mountain has vanished. The disposal of production, however, is still heavily subsidised. About three quarters of the Community's skimmed milk powder production and one fifth of butter production receives a subsidy to assist in finding an outlet for that production. We are now trying to deal with that problem


and are urging that some of the subsidies should be reduced. The Commission, with my encouragement, has now taken action on that matter.

Mr. William Cash: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that the Court of Auditors recently pronounced on the incredible waste connected with the public storage of goods that form part of the common agricultural policy. That storage costs us about £3 billion-plus a year, and the Court of Auditors described the whole system as a total shambles and utterly discredited. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must do something to get this matter under control, because it represents one of the greatest wastes of public expenditure that the country witnesses?

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend goes a little far, and perhaps I can explain why. We are not talking about £3 billion being wasted through bad storage methods. A large part of that cost has been incurred in the straight storage and disposal of the surpluses. I made it clear that, as a result of the CAP reforms, those surpluses are significantly falling, so, over a period, that cost will reduce.
Where the Court of Auditors has been right in drawing our attention to difficulties is in respect of the way in which some of the storage and dispoal systems have been operating. The cost of these difficulties is a much lesser figure. The real need is to get rid of the surpluses, for that is the way that costs will come down. Nevertheless, while we have surpluses, I am in favour of ensuring that we operate them as efficiently as possible and that there is no waste or mismanagement. That makes for inefficient use of resources for which the taxpayer has to pay. I assure my hon. Friend that I drew attention to the Court of Auditors' report at the last Council meeting, saying that we should all be concerned to learn its lessons. I am glad to say that I was supported by the Commission, and that the Council will be considering the report shortly. But the distinction to make is an important one.
I referred to some of the quota system's helpful elements, including containing expenditure. Above all, on that side of the equation, quotas have given our dairy farmers stability. Producer numbers have fallen since quotas were imposed, but that is the continuation of a long-term trend. Fundamentally, dairy farmers know the broad constraints within which they will be working until 1992. The price they receive for their output is about 3 per cent. higher than it was a year ago. Dairy farming profits, which were falling when quotas were introduced, have risen steadily since then.
With the rationalisation of processing capacity that has occurred, the industry is in good shape to maximise the value of its production, and—with curbs on production—that will be the key to its future prosperity.
One of the other, often very difficult, problems about quotas is the acute difficulties that arise—especially in the initial stages but also subsequently from time to time—in the methods of and principles applied to the distribution of quotas. That was one of the most difficult tasks facing us on the introduction of quotas—deciding how to distribute them. It is one of the issues before us tonight. In April, the European Court ruled that the original Community quota regulations were in breach of Community law by failing to make provision for producers who intended returning to

production after fulfilling the four or five-year cessation period required by the scheme. That judgment requires the Commission to make proposals for changes to the quota regulations.
At this point, I stress that neither the Council of Ministers nor the Commission in any way welcomes that development. It presented a problem that we did not seek and the need for policy changes that we did not wish to make. However, the Council is obliged to act in response to a European Court judgment. It has no option.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: There is an option. If the Council of Ministers agrees that this is thoroughly disadvantageous, an amendment to the treaty would overturn the Court's ruling.

Mr. MacGregor: That is probably beyond the abilities of the Council of Agriculture Ministers to bring about. We feel that we must act within the Court's judgment, but I shall explain how we are trying to minimise the disadvantages. In view of the shortness of this debate, and despite the fact that it is a single debate, perhaps I ought to get on with my speech, so that other right hon. and hon. Members may have an opportunity to contribute.
I have sympathy with those farmers who have complained about the measures that the Council is now considering on the ground that they are unfair to existing producers—for example, those with development awards, and particularly those who found their original quota requests sharply cut back in 1984. I have to say that this is not a step taken by Ministers on their initiative. We are being purely reactive, as we are obliged to be, and it has been my objective—and here I come to my hon. Friend's point—to minimise possible unfairnesses.
The Commission's response to the Court's decision is the package of proposals as refined for decision by the Council and set out in document COM(88)446. Briefly, a new category of producer eligible for the allocation of quota is defined on the basis of restrictive criteria. These are designed to ensure that the only producers who benefit will be those who are committed to return to milk production, although they joined the cessation scheme at the time.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: How is the Court's decision being interpreted? Does it apply to farmers who ceased milk production if the five-year period was before 1984, or specifically to those cases in which the five-year period ended after that year? Would such farmers be prevented from applying for quotas? Many of them would like that to be clarified.

Mr. MacGregor: I cannot give a clear answer to that question yet, because it is one of the matters currently being debated in the Council.
An increase in the Community quota reserve of 500,000 tonnes is proposed to alleviate the problems faced by member states in allocating quotas to the new category of producers. To compensate in part for the extra costs flowing from the additional production, the Commission proposes to reduce the butter intervention price by 2 per cent., which would be offset by a reduction in the co-responsibility levy for small producers. Finally, the package incorporates a technical change in the way in which supplementary levy is calculated to clarify member


states' liability in the first two years of quotas. Those are the key ingredients. There are a number of other detailed points which there is not time to go into this evening.
From the outset of our Council discussions, I emphasised my belief that we should be guided by certain principles. First, we should aim to ensure that the quotas of existing producers were not affected by the need to respond to the Court's decision. Secondly, the conditions for eligibility should be restrictively drawn to ensure that only those genuinely intending to go back into milk—and then doing so—should benefit. Thirdly, the quota should not be capable of being sold or leased.
I know that those points have been strongly supported by many of our farmers, and I am pleased to see that there has been growing support for them in the Council. The measures before us reflect them, while taking fair account of the interests of those producers who clearly did and do intend to return to milk production. Moreover—this is another important criterion—the package now taking shape will not undermine the effectiveness of the quota system.
The package has already been subject to considerable discussion in the Council, and I cannot be certain when we shall reach final decisions, although I hope—it is only a hope, but 1 intend to try to achieve it—that it will be at the December Council. I am keen to resolve the issue—which is causing uncertainty among our dairy farmers—as quickly as possible. Overall, however, while a number of points of detail remain to be resolved, the question of eligibility conditions seems to he moving to a satisfactory resolution.
The remainder of the package has received rather less attention in Community discussion, but raises some important issues. In view of the continuing level of surplus production, I regret the need to increase the total amount of quota available, but—as I have said—it was not of our choosing. It will not be easy to avoid, given the need to make provisions for a new category of producers without affecting the outlook for those who already hold quotas. The need to limit the potential demand for new quota is the main reason for keeping the eligibility criteria very restrictive.
I support the proposed cut in the butter price, although I regret that even on the Commission's figures it does not compensate for the whole cost of the extra quota proposed. Given the current cost of the dairy regime—which, as I explained, is still the most expensive in the Community—it would have been unfair to seek compensatory savings from other sectors for a problem that has arisen in the dairy sector itself.
By the same token, I am unhappy at the suggested cut in the co-responsibility levy for very small producers. It has little economic justification; it is not relevant to the Court's judgment that we have to implement; and it disadvantages the United Kingdom because so few of our producers fall into that category. I have therefore been opposing it.
Overall, this is a complex proposal which has been forced on the Community by an unexpected decision of the Court. However, in the light of discussions so far, there are better prospects than I feared at the outset of a package emerging that is reasonable in all the circumstances. There is still, therefore, enough time for us to ask for views and to reach a final decision. That is why I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this debate. I have made a short speech to enable as many hon. Members as possible

to express their views on the proposal. It will enable me to take their views into account when I prepare my approach to the further and, I hope, final Council discussions.

Dr. David Clark: I, too, intend to restrict my remarks to the aftermath of the Wilder case so that as many right hon. and hon. Members as possible can take part in the debate.
We welcome the opportunity to discuss this important matter. It enables hon. Members to put their views to the Minister, which he will be able to take with him to the meeting that is to be held between 12 and 16 December. He can then fight for what we believe in. Many hon. Members believe that the Court's judgment is perverse, but that is the legally correct position and we have to abide by it. Nevertheless, the judgment highlights the injustices that many small dairy farmers face. They have done badly out of the introduction of quotas. They have not had the advantage of the golden handshake schemes from which farmers who are covered by the Mulder judgment can benefit. That fact needs to be put on the record. Many small farmers were able to make a living before the introduction of quotas. The cuts, however, have made it difficult for them to continue in business as dairy farmers.
The Minister implied that the Mulder case presents the Commission with a serious problem. A literal and generous interpretation of the Court's judgment could mean that an additional 5 million tonnes of milk would have to be found. To put that into perspective., I understand that that is roughly equal to the total quantity of milk that has been saved since the introduction of generous quota systems in 1984. Faced with that dilemma, the Commission felt that it had been placed in an impossible position. It has therefore proposed a limited scheme.
It would be useful if the Minister could tell hon. Members about the bargaining positions of the other member states. It would also be useful if he could further clarify the British Government's stance. We understand that the new scheme will be available only to those farmers who received the non-marketing premiums after 1 April 1984. That is restrictive, but I do not grumble about it. We understand also that the new scheme will apply only to farmers who are able to show that they can run viable dairy units. It will not apply to farmers who are already in receipt of the dairy quota.
The most interesting aspect of the Commission's proposals—I stress that they are proposals—is that the Minister was frank and open at the November Council meetings when these matters were discussed. His stance was known when the Council was discussing the small group of people who are eligible. The Minister supported the Commission's proposals. May we be told about the attitude of the Germans, the main beneficiaries of the scheme, and that of the Danes and the southern Europeans to the scheme, who will not benefit from it?
Another interesting point in the document is that if any of the new quota is subsequently leased or sold it will be confiscated and returned to the Community's reserve. When, a few minutes ago, the Minister elaborated on that, the House applauded what he said. Is it likely that if quotas are leased or sold they will be confiscated and returned to the Community reserve, or will we find that


that clause is not implemented? We think that the extra quota should not have a cash value on it. I hope that the Minister can give us a firm assurance about that.
The Minister has previously cautioned farmers about the inherent value of quotas and warned that, while they have a value now, there is no guarantee that quotas will go on indefinitely. It is right to repeat that, because we are all aware of the considerable amount of money that is spent on the leasing and purchasing of quotas.
Will the Minister take on board the worry that there could be transnational quota purchases after 1992? There are considerable differences between the market prices of

quotas in the Republic of Ireland, Britain and Holland. At the moment it is not possible to trade quota across national boundaries, but such trade will presumably be allowed after 1992. That being so, the concept of a national quota, which we found acceptable, could be destroyed. Taking the argument to its logical conclusion, we could find that there are no cows in Britain, and that all milk is produced in Holland.
We basically support the Government's line, and we think that they and the Commission are right to try to restrict the availability of quota. We find the judgment rather unfair, bearing in mind the fact that many small farmers have done rather badly out of the milk quota system.

Mr. Michael Jopling: My right hon. Friend the Minister referred to the early negotiations in 1983 and 1984, when milk quotas were introduced. I think that I would not be exaggerating if I said that he and I have those negotiations written across our souls in indelible ink. We will never forget those difficult months.
My right hon. Friend referred to some of the inherent weaknesses of milk quotas. One of our anxieties was that quotas should be properly enforced in all countries. Now I read that in Italy, for example, there is a suggestion that massive amounts of levy have not been paid. I hope that my right hon. Friend will tell us that, if that is the case, no effort will be spared in extracting that money from Italy. I remind him of a provision which he and I got put in late in those negotiations—that in the event of a country not paying up, the levy would come from the farmers and not from the Government. That is important, and I hope that he will not forget it when dealing with Italy.
I agree strongly with most of what the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) said, but he was a bit unfair not to acknowledge that, when quotas were introduced, we leaned over backwards to ensure that small farmers got back to their pre-quota milk production as quickly as possible. I think that we succeeded. That should be acknowledged.
We must accept the judgment of the European Court—the hon. Member for South Shields responsibly and honestly said that—but I think that it was grotesque in every way. It is well known that most of the people who took the 1977 scheme to be paid to get out of milk production did so as a permanent and not as a temporary step. Few of them could go back into milk production even if they wanted to. No doubt some of them will do, hoping to be able to make a quick buck out of the value of the milk quota, but I shall say more on that later.
I am sure that the Minister remembers, as I do, the difficult months after the introduction of the milk quota. What caused as much resentment as anything else was the fact that some people who had taken the scheme to go out of milk production then came back into it and were given generous quotas. That was widely regarded as unfair at the time, arid it will be regarded as even more unfair now if some of those people return after years out of milk production. The European Court has gone off its head in making that judgment.
I welcome the Minister's comments. I want to underline them and suggest that they should be sticking points in the negotiations. This quota is unexpected, so it should be non-transferable; people should not be able to profit by selling it. The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) spoke about that crucial matter.
How will my right hon. Friend deal with a case in which somebody who has been given extra quota then wants to sell his farm? Will he be allowed to sell the quota with the farm, or does it die when he leaves the farm? That is an important matter. It must be a sticking point that people who are given this windfall should not be able to cash it.
I welcome enormously the Minister's statement that the United Kingdom Government are seeking to protect existing quota holders and not to take some of the extra windfall quota from people who, goodness knows, have had enough difficulties in the past few years with milk

quotas. The Minister will be taking part in difficult negotiations: I understand that almost as well as any other hon. Member.
I grieve that the Germans' lack of realism seems to continue unabated despite the death of Mr. Strauss in Bavaria. I hope that a little more realism will creep into the way in which Mr. Kiechle works his case in the Council of Agriculture Ministers, because it has been less than responsible for many years. I understand that the Germans want producers, under the windfall arrangement, to receive all the quota that they would have been granted had they been producing in the base year, and that they also want part-time farmers to benefit. I hope that my right hon. Friend will resist that proposal, because I see no purpose in supporting the Germans' suggestion.
I endorse heavily what my right hon. Friend said about his strong opposition to reducing the co-responsibility levy for small producers as part of the whole package. My right hon. Friend knows that one of his most important battles on behalf of British farmers in Brussels and Luxembourg will be to resist the continuous attempts by the Commission and other countries to slant the common agricultural policy in favour of small farmers. That is an attack on British agriculture because we have a hugely better and more efficient structure than almost any other country in the Community.
The proposal to reduce the co-responsibility levy for small producers is just another way in which small farmers—the majority of farmers—in almost all other Community countries benefit at the expense of British agriculture. One should remember that the average size of herd in this country is about 60 cows, whereas in a country such as Portugal, I believe, about 97 per cent. of the milk is produced from herds of three or fewer cows. That fact illustrates the differences in structure. We must not allow the Community to take us in Britain to the cleaners.
I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend's approach to this most difficult and unforeseen problem, and I wish him luck in the negotiations.

Mr. Geraint Howells: I am sure that hon. Members of all parties will agree that since the overnight introduction four years ago of milk quotas, agriculture in Britain has never recovered confidence. It will take a long time to restore that confidence. I say that with respect to the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) and his hon. Friends because I am not in any way condemning him, but simply referring to the milk quotas that were forced on us by the EEC Commission.
It is a great pity that during those four years the industry has lost further confidence in nearly every sector. I have agreed with many of the suggestions made by the Minister in the past four years about what should be done to try to help agriculture, but I hope he will recognise that it is the wish of the majority of farmers in this country that he should stop dismantling many of our agricultural institutions, and that he should not take away the guaranteed price system that has operated so successfully for some of our products. I shall not refer to any of them tonight, but I should like the Minister to be aware of the views of many farmers. After reading what Mr. Derek Andrews, the permanent secretary to the Ministry of


Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, has said, the fortunes of the farming community do not look very bright. It seems that agriculture will have a bad time in the next 12 months.
I turn now to milk quotas and the EEC ruling. I am sure that many dairy farmers throughout the country were as shocked as I was on hearing the EEC's ruling about the two Dutch farmers. However, that has happened and we must live with it. I agree entirely with the sentiments expressed by the Minister tonight. My hon. Friends support him wholeheartedly and hope that he will be successful in his deliberations in Brussels in the coming months.
I am sure that to their way of thinking the Dutch farmers will feel that they have been fortunate. I wonder whether there are any dairy farmers in Britain who would go to court about an extra milk quota. Could any farmers in Britain do the same as those two Dutch farmers? It would be sad if many dairy farmers in this country would do so.
Although this matter has been covered by many hon. Members, I should like to ask some questions. I hold the same view as the Milk Marketing Board, which is in favour of making sure that milk production surrendered will not be surrendered to the non-marketing schemes.
The dairy industry in this country would like answers to three questions. First, many farmers have asked me—I pass this on to the Minister and hope that he can give me an assurance on it—whether the milk quotas will be operating in this country after 1992. Although the right hon. Gentleman said that the butter surplus in the EEC was diminishing, does he foresee a day in the near future when there will be a milk shortage in the EEC?
We have heard about quotas being bought and sold and the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) talked about the transnational quota system that will operate after 1992. A few years ago many dairy farmers in Wales sold their quotas to farmers in England, but I was delighted to learn that the trade is now in reverse. Many farmers are worried about the value of the quotas. I agree entirely with the Minister, who has been saying for the last few years that we have to be careful that farmers' milk quotas do not become worthless after 1992.
The final and best question is the one put to me by dairy farmers. Can the Minister give an assurance that British dairy farmers will have the opportunity to compete on equal terms with their counterparts in the rest of the EEC? If he can give that assurance, many dairy farmers will look ahead with confidence. The ruling has my backing and that of my hon. Friends.

Mr. Paul Marland: There is no doubt that the introduction of milk quotas has substantially reduced the output of milk from our dairy farms. The turn round in farmer opinion after the quotas were introduced has been astonishing. There was an enormous amount of ill-feeling flying around when my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) and our mutual right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food were doing their best to introduce the milk quotas. I was the Parliamentary Private Secretary to my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale and I

remember going to the three counties show and then on to Ross-on-Wye and Dyfed. We were mobbed by farmers. I always thought that farmers were friendly until we went to those places.
It is to the great credit of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale that he stuck to his guns and carried on with a difficult job. Dairy farmers now owe him a debt of gratitude that they can never express. That was a difficult time for my right hon. Friend, but the one thing that dairy farmers do not now want to part with is their dairy quota.
It is good news that stocks are falling, because that means lower costs to the taxpayers, less flak for the farmers and less criticism that the dairy industry is not trying to solve its own problems.
Like other hon. Members, I should like to turn to the MÜlder factor, the Dutch farmer who took financial inducements to stop milk production through a beef conversion scheme before quotas were introduced in 1984. Admittedly, it was a temporary arrangement, but how was anybody to know that the Dutch farmer was later to return to dairy farming? Mr. Wilder, who pocketed the cash that was available, has now changed his mind and decided to return to dairy farming. May I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister whether it is possible to appeal against this European Court of Justice ruling? [Interruption.] I notice that the Minister moves his head to show that it is not. At any rate, he has not fallen asleep.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) suggested that Commissioners might rewrite the rules. That is not an unrealistic suggestion. Perhaps we could have an explanation about that. It seems to be the height of injustice that farmers, who were involved in expansion plans when the quotas were introduced, were not offered the facility that is now being offered to Mr. MÜlder. Many of my constituents who were engaged on Government expansion plans were kneecapped when the quotas were introduced. Many of them, although they were not made bankrupt, had to sell their farms and go into a different business. Why should they not be allowed such an opportunity? Perhaps we could go to the European Court about that as well. There is a great feeling of injustice because the MÜlders have received what the farmers in the Forest of Dean see as rather special treatment.
It is incredible that the EEC will find another 500,000 tonnes of production to help Mr. MÜlder, and anybody else in his position. It will be a great incentive to other farmers to find ways to ride in on the back of this court case to see whether they, too, can get some extra production or come back into dairy farming. It cannot be right that, having cashed in once to get out of milk, he should seek to cash in again to get back into milk. I was delighted to hear my right hon. Friend say that he will use his best influence to make sure that this is not resaleable, not leaseable and not inheritable.
A quota is now worth money, and the MÜlder case is seen by dairy farmers throughout the country as the height of injustice. All the good will of the farmers of the Forest of Dean and of dairy farmers throughout the country goes with my right hon. Friend in his negotiations to ensure that the quota is not resaleable and cannot be passed on. I wonder whether any more skeletons will fall from any more cupboards. Perhaps we should do our best to bring them all out, once and for all, and put an end to it, so that the farmers can know not only where they are now, but


where they will be in the future. I wish my right hon. Friend the best of luck in these negotiations, for many of us admire his lucidity, tenacity and stamina in hanging on in all these negotiations. He is positively terrier-like in the way that he approaches the European negotiations.

Mr. Eric Martlew: First, I apologise for the fact that I may not be here for the winding-up speech.
I shall take a slightly different tack from that taken by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland). Milk quotas have not just created benefits. In my constituency, a brand-new factory that cost £2 million and employed 60 people had to close. It is a shame that we cannot debate New Zealand butter with the milk quotas, because they tie in. I accept the good reasons of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North (Mr. Spearing) for objecting to that, but the only logic that would cause me to change my mind and be in favour of the importation of New Zealand butter is the fact that there is now a shortage of milk for manufacturing processes. It makes no sense to stop imports of New Zealand butter in those circumstances.
I am a Member sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union, and many of its members have jobs in the milk processing industry. The quota system may have got rid of surpluses, which is a good thing, but we do not have a free market. It is surprising that Tory Members do not want it. We have a monopoly shortage. The Minister said that the butter mountain has started to melt. Not thousands of tonnes, nor hundreds of tonnes, nor even a single pat of butter goes in intervention. We have a shortage of milk. Companies with orders for evaporated milk, full-cream milk powder, yogurt and cheese—all labour-intensive processes—cannot fulfil those orders because, although we have the manufacturing capacity, we do not have the raw materials. These are all genuine orders; there is no subsidy.
The Minister said that quotas brought a secure future for the milk-processing industry, but that is not correct because there is a lack of investment in the industry. There is surplus capacity, but not the promise of extra milk to meet those orders. I accept that there is a surplus in Europe. I asked the Minister about that before the recess and he admitted that that was so, but, when I asked whether there was a surplus in the United Kingdom, he did not answer the question. Italy and France are putting cheese into intervention, but, in Scotland, the creameries cannot meet export orders for cheddar cheese, which would greatly help our balance of payments, because of the milk quota system. In a perverse way, therefore, the ruling of the European Court will perpetuate that situation.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Was not the quota system designed to ensure that the United Kingdom opened up its market to liquid milk from Europe? As the hon. Gentleman said, there is a shortage of milk in this country. Manufacturing capacity is unused because of that shortage and the system is now achieving what Europe rather than the United Kingdom wanted—access to the English market for continental liquid milk.

Mr. Martlew: If the hon. Gentleman is asking whether we got a raw deal from the Commission's milk quota proposals, the answer is yes, just as we normally do.

However, the dairy farmers who are left did not get a raw deal; they are doing very well. If we consider agriculture in general, dairy farming is the one area that is doing well. One of the reasons for that is that the Milk Marketing Board, which is, in effect, a farmers' monopoly co-operative, pushes up the price of milk for manufacturers. That money then goes to the farmers. As a consequence, we shall be pushed out of the world market and some creameries will close. Those farmers now have guaranteed security. They have a product that is more valuable than milk and, in some cases, more valuable than the land that they farm.
Let me quote an example from an advertisement in Saturday's Yorkshire Post. The advertisement, which appears under an advertisement for cess pools—that is perhaps significant—states:
Milk quota for sale. Both clean and part used with B.F. 3·56 to 4·05 per cent.
The figures refer to the butter fat content.
We cannot blame the farmer for selling the quota. He did not buy it; he just happened to be there when the EEC and the Government gave him the commodity. Surely that cannot be right.
We must consider a system in which we can equalise the amount of milk that goes into manufacture in Europe. One of the reasons why there is a shortage of milk at present is the milk curve. It would be a bureaucratic nightmare, but we must examine the possibility of a monthly quota so that we can calculate the times of year when we require the milk. That cannot be done by giving financial incentives to the farmers. We must consider a system whereby, in the spring, there would be no surpluses to go into intervention, but, when in periods of shortage, we would have the milk to ensure that our creameries kept going.
I hope that the Minister will examine that option and consider ways of getting rid of that distasteful speculation and bartering of milk quotas represented by a certificate that the farmers never earned and do not deserve. The only person who pays is the consumer.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I have two brief questions for the Minister, who is clearly dealing with great skill with an issue that has arisen from a judicial decision. First, what is the net cost of that which has been proposed? The papers that are before us are mystifying. The Commission refers to a "net deficit" of about £18 million. The Ministry tells us that the cost will be about £30 million. The third estimate comes from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who, being a sensible and humble man, has taken a middle view and opted for £24 million. Why is there such a great difference between the estimates, and where will the money come from?
In a recent debate we were told that there are legally binding terms and restraints on agricultural spending. I ask the Minister to tell us where the £30 million, or £24 million, will come from. Will it mean some compensating factor for other spending on agriculture?
Further to the net addition to Community spending on agriculture, will there be any additional spending by member states, including the United Kingdom? The Court of Auditors' report says that the transfer of financial responsibility for butter dumping to member states was unlawful, and the Council of Ministers declined even to discuss the proposal. We know, however, that butter dumping is extremely expensive. It was revealed in a


parliamentary answer last week that the most recent price of selling butter is 2·75p per pound, which seems extremely low. When the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells), the Liberal party's spokesman, was speaking of the possibility of a shortage of milk and butter because of the reduced quotas, he should have been aware also of the implications of the fire clearance sale.
Will there be additional spending by member states because of any increase in the dumping of butter, which has reached extraordinary and substantial levels? My right hon. Friend the Minister will know that specific assurances were given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and by all the members of the European Council in February, when they agreed to a massive increase in Community spending. I hope that we shall be told who will pay for the deficit. Secondly, will there be a compensating effect on the Community's spending on agriculture? Thirdly, why are the Commission's figures so wildly different from the Government's estimates?

Mr. William Cash: I, too, have experienced the milk quota issue at first hand. The quota was announced on the day that I was selected as the Conservative party candidate for the Stafford by-election. That is another event that I am unlikely to forget.
I endorse the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) as a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation, which recommended that the issue before us should be debated at an early date. There is the important matter of principle that these matters are ultimately subject to majority voting, and there is potential for a blocking minority that will be constituted by the Mediterranean countries. We do not know what the outcome will be, and at the same time it is clear that the proposals that we are discussing are inspired largely by the interests of the German Minister and the electorate which he serves.
I have the greatest possible respect for my right hon. Friend the Minister, for he is a man of great skill and determination, but how are we to retrieve a situation that will have a significant adverse effect on the British farmer, on the assumption that majority voting will have the result that we expect? We must stand up for our rights.
There was a unique event on Monday, when the proposal to take note of a European document was opposed by the Government. If we are out-voted on this issue, we should not take that lying down in the Council of Ministers or as a Parliament. We should ensure, as a Government and as a Parliament, that we make our protest and that we act accordingly, if necessary by a vote in the House.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I support my right hon. Friend the Minister in this matter. I believe that he is working very hard for constituents like mine who over the past few years have had a 19 per cent. cut in their milk quota and who now have some stability. They welcome the

fact that the Minister is determined to fight to preserve that position and to ensure that farming is on a fair financial footing over the next few years.
In Pembrokeshire we have watched with some concern the implications of the MÜlder case, especially for family farms which tend to be small and medium-sized units. I hope that the Minister will bear in mind the parliamentary answer that he gave me recently. In one he said that it was not envisaged that there would be any further cuts in quota after this year, taking account of those that have already been announced. In another he said that surpluses had, to a large extent, been eliminated in the dairy sector. Given that that is the case, we must ensure that there are no cuts in quota as a result of the MÜlder judgment.
Farmers who now believe that they have a stable position should not find suddenly that further unexpected cuts are made in 1989 and 1990. It is up to the Commission to find some other way if it is necessary to recompense farmers who went out of production in 1978 rather than take it out on the farmers who are still in production and who have been led to believe that the position has been fixed for the foreseeable future.
I welcome a letter sent by Mr. O. J. Williams, the prospective Conservative candidate for the European Parliament constituency of Mid and West Wales, to the Minister in September in which he stated that in 1984 only 65 per cent. of hardship cases were met. Not every farmer who suffered hardship received benefit. It is important that we should remember that when we are dealing with the MÜlder case. We should therefore take a fair, but restrictive, attitude towards the applications from farmers who went out of production as long ago as 1978.

Mr. Ron Davies: I commend the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett). That is not something that I normally do, but at least he was the only individual on the Government Back Benches to commit himself and his support to this evening's proposal. I congratulate him on that.
I was surprised by the attitude adopted by the Minister when he opened the debate. I was also surprised by the comments of the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) who followed him this evening, but who preceded him in office. They both spent some considerable time hand-wringing and bemoaning the evils of the quota system and the common agricultural policy. I have to remind them that it was the Conservative Government who took us into the European Community, who accepted the common agricultural policy and who for the past nine years have been the stewards of British interests in the European Community. If there are any deficiencies in the quality of the agreements—

Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Davies: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish this sentence and make this point, I will give way, as I think that he has a valid intervention to make. However, at least he should have the courtesy to allow me to finish the point that I am making.
If there are any defects in the agreements coming from Europe at the moment, we know who is responsible for them. The British Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food represents British interests in Brussels.

Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman go on the record and agree that, as a result of the referendum, the Labour Government ensured that we stayed in Europe and, furthermore, renegotiated on terms that have turned out to be less than satisfactory?

Mr. Davies: That is irrelevent to this evening's debate. My point is that for the past nine years all the agreements made in Brussels have been made with the agreement of successive British Ministers. There are two of them here tonight who have bemoaned and criticised the quota system—the present Minister attempted to suggest that there would be some benefit from quotas—but they have been responsible for the implementation of the quota system in Britain. We should not forget that.
We have had a very wide-ranging debate, and I was surprised at just how wide-ranging it was. Indeed, the contribution from the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) was quite entertaining, as is normally the case. I hope that we did not keep him from his dinner for too long.
The Mülder case and the judgment that resulted from it receives our support for two very good reasons. First, the outgoers scheme, as it was introduced in 1978, was known to be a temporary scheme. The Minister was suggesting to the Under-Secretary that a Labour Government were in office at the time. That is true. I hope that I am showing the degree of consistency that my party has always shown on these matters in endorsing the action taken by that Government in 1978. It was a temporary scheme, and it would be quite wrong for individuals who voluntarily involved themselves in those outgoers schemes now to be penalised. Therefore, we support the principle that was developed in the MÜlder case. Secondly, the principle of the violation of legitimate expectations was the basis on which the judgment was made.
We supported the Minister's initiatives on set-aside. It is important that the principles developed in this case are seen to be supported by all parties in the House. Otherwise, initiatives such as the one that he is now taking under set-aside could be in jeopardy if farmers felt that their legitimate interests would be prejudiced in two, three, four or five years' time—God forbid that quotas on cereals would be introduced—and they would be reluctant to enter into set-aside agreements. For those reasons, we support the principles of the judgment in the Wilder case.

Mr. James Paice: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a fundamental difference between a temporary scheme, whereby the scheme itself is not supposed to last for ever, and the temporary exodus of individual farmers? In the case that we are discussing tonight, the farmers themselves decided to go out of milk production. There is a great difference between whether the scheme was temporary and whether the farmers' cessation of milk production was temporary.

Mr. Davies: I understand the distinction that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make, but, as I understand it, the temporary scheme was clearly intended to take farmers out of milk production for a limited period. That was the nature of the scheme and the basis on which entrants into the scheme signed various agreements.
I support the principles involved, but I have some doubts about the implementation of the scheme. I understand that in September, when the Commission was considering the matter, it estimated that 1 million tones

of quota would be required to meet applications under the scheme. The scheme now before us provides for only half that figure: only 500,000 tonnes of additional quota will be made available. Will the Minister square that circle and tell us how he proposes to deal with it? If there are more applicants than quota, will he come back and suggest that more quota be found? Will he enforce some percentage agreement, take applications on the basis of first come, first served, or will he reduce the amounts available? Those are serious questions and I hope the Minister will tell us how he proposes to deal with them when he replies to the debate. They are particularly important for Britain because the British dairy industry was as prepared as that of any other country in Europe voluntarily to involve itself in the 1978 scheme.
I draw the attention of the House to the appendix that accompanies the motion. It refers to the number of applicants for cessation in the various countries of the European Community. In the United Kingdom there were 5,694 beneficiaries of the milk non-marketing premium and 2,510 beneficiaries in the dairy herd conversion scheme. In total, more than 8,000 British farmers participated in the schemes. The Under-Secretary agrees. I am grateful for that because I have here a comment which he made in the explanatory memorandum on the European Community legislation. He said:
The United Kingdom accounted for a high percentage of the production surrendered under Regulation 1078/77 and will wish to see this reflected in the allocation of any additional quota.
British farmers provided 10 per cent. of production relinquished under those schemes, with 8,000 of them participating. A court judgment now makes quotas available to two Dutch individuals who took court action. When the Minister replies, I want him to say how the proposals will affect the 8,000 British farmers who took advantage of the 1978 scheme. He should have the answer readily available.
I refer the Minister to the detailed translation available in the Vote Office, which sets out the criteria for eligibility for entry into the scheme. One has been included quite deliberately to exclude not only British farmers but a large number of European farmers. It states that they had to have
applied in vain to the Member State's competent authority for a reference quantity between 31.3.1984 and 31.7.1988.
The Ministry has records of all the applications lodged with it for quota between 31 March 1984 and 31 July 1988.
The Minister is shaking his head, either because he does not have the records or because he is not prepared to agree to the provision. If the latter, it is a pity that he did not say so during his speech. If the former—that he does not have details of those who applied—it means that 8,000 British farmers eligible, in theory, for admission to the scheme cannot apply because the Ministry does not have records of their applications.

Mr. MacGregor: It is the latter case. I opposed that provision in the Commission's proposals. I am glad to say that it does not now appear that it will be included.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Davies: I share the delight of Conservative Members. However, it is somewhat remiss of the Minister not to say that what appear in the document as the conditions that will apply do not meet with his agreement, and that the House is being asked to take note not of this


document but of an amended document. We do not know what those amendments will be. I like to think that the right hon. Gentleman treats the House with a degree of integrity. He should be prepared to say how the document will be amended and how the criteria will apply.
As the Minister has volunteered that snippet of information, I shall press him further. Will he give an assurance that the criteria will not have to be met?

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman knows that there is qualified majority voting. It is not open to one Minister to give an absolute assurance on how negotiations will end. I said that I opposed the proposal, and I have support for that. I do not think that it will be in the final scheme.

Mr. Davies: I am grateful to the Minister for that concession. I shall test him once more—[Interruption.] We do not often have time to debate these matters. If Conservative Members want to take me on, I shall be happy to take them on during the remaining 22 minutes. I have legitimate points to make and these matters must be properly debated in the House. We have already had one important admission from the Minister, and I want one more.
If there is to be a similar provision—that to meet the eligibility criteria applicants will have had to have lodged their applications with the Ministry between 31 March 1984 and 31 July 1988—in the light of the Minister's reservations, will he assure us that there are adequate records of any British farmers who made applications verifying that they lodged applications during the relevant period? That appears to me to be a simple and straightforward question. If the Minister will give the undertaking that that information is available in his Department, I shall be happy with that.
A number of questions were asked by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), the answers to which we would be interested to hear. We, too, have a number of questions. How is the quota to be apportioned; and what percentage of the additional quota does the Minister believe will be available to the United Kingdom? How many applications have so far been made? How many applications are held by his Department? If the criteria discussed earlier are to be enforced, how many applications have been made? How many of those applicants would meet the necessary criteria? How many British dairy farmers, who took advantage of the two outgoers schemes in 1978, would be eligible for this scheme if it were accepted as it presently stands? Those are specific questions which we are entitled to have answered.
The Minister was very candid when he said that the Commission had been forced into taking this initiative—if we can call it that—which was reactive and for which we expressedd our support. Of course, that was the minimum that was compatible with the judgment. We do not criticise the Government for the way in which they have presented this or for their behaviour so far. However, for all of us, it is a sorry reminder of the inadequacies of the common agricultural policy, and it should remain a spur both to the Government and to Opposition to achieve a radical reform of that policy. That is the real lesson to be learnt from this debate.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Donald Thompson): I am surprised that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) said that everything should have been cut and dried before we came into the Chamber; if it had been, all the speeches in the debate would have been worthless and useless, and there would have been no point in having the debate. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who asked for the debate to be split into two halves, would also have been wasting his time. The hon. Member has gone, but he will be here again. The Scrutiny Committee asked for the debate so that the Minister could get the flavour of opinion in the House on this important issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) began with an intervention saying that we could perhaps change the rules altogether; that has been taken up and, of course, has been brought to my right hon. Friend's attention.
The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) covered many of the matters which were subsequently reinforced. Initially, he asked what the attitude was of other member states. He named Germany, Denmark and the Mediterranean countries. He wisely chose three divergent opinions. The Germans want a less restrictive scheme than we do. They want to allow in, perhaps, all the people who were excluded all those years ago, and they want to allow in part-time farmers. The Danes support my right hon. Friend in wanting a more restrictive scheme. I am not sure whether the Danes support the Germans in the introduction of part-time farmers, but we certainly do not.
The southern and Mediterranean countries are asking, as the hon. Member for Caerphilly has done, for a renegotiation, a payback: "Let us do a deal. What will we get out of it?" Perhaps we could have expected such attitudes.
The hon. Member for South Shields said that, when and if quotas are reallocated, they should be nonnegotiable. My right hon. Friend has already said that if those quotas are reallocated, he will try to ensure that they are not transferrable and non-negotiable. It is a special scheme with special quotas and I hope that we can draw up special rules.
The hon. Members for South Shields and for Ceredigion and Pembroke (Mr. Howells) also asked whether quotas will go on for ever and whether there will be Euro-trading in them. The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke also asked whether there will be a milk shortage after 1992; whether there will be transnational quotas and whether British dairy farmers will be able to compete on equal terms. I can only answer yes to the last question. The Minister and previous Ministers have done their best and have succeeded in ensuring that our farmers can compete on equal terms. I would need to look into the crystal ball to be able to give the hon. Gentleman any reasonable answers to the rest of his questions. Perhaps he can have a word with Merlin when he pops home.
I should like to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) said about my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling). The work that my right hon. Friend did during the introduction of quotas is now being recognised. I have been to farmers' meetings where they have said straight out that they did not realise that it would


all turn out as well as it has—I am sure that at the time my right hon. Friend knew that it would. It is because of my right hon. Friend's hard work that we now have such a sensible system.
My right hon. Friend will be reassured to know that my right hon. Friend the Minister is following in his footsteps by hounding the Italians at every stage. The only way in which we can guarantee that British farmers are not disadvantaged is to ensure that all the member states of the EC stick to the rules that are imposed by a qualified majority or a unanimous vote. My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale said that the court judgment was grotesque, and since then many people have supported that statement.
I have already said that this is a special quota dealing with a special category. The hon. Member for Caerphilly said that the terms of the quota should have been chiselled on stone in black and white to prevent alterations. I am sure that he will accept that all the terms will be the subject of negotiation in Brussels during the long hours of deliberations.

Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be highly desirable if the European Court of Justice decisions could be attributable to the judgments made by individual judges? Then we would know who made the majority decisions in that court.

Mr. Thompson: It might help my hon. Friend, but it would not help me. It would not alter the case. I shall not be led down that path tonight—perhaps one afternoon in the Smoking Room.
The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) left the Chamber after advocating what I would have called, to provoke him had he been present, a free market in milk. However, as he is absent, I shall not bother.
The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) mentioned costs. He will have read the financial implications given in the explanatory memorandum:
The Commission estimates the cost of increasing the Community reserve, measured in disposal terms, at 90 MECU (£59·9m). In addition the 0·5 per cent. reduction in co-responisbility levy will reduce receipts by 20 MECU (£13·3m) giving a total cost of 110 MECU (·73·2m). Against this is set the savings of 74 MECU (£49·3m) from the reduction in the intervention support price for butter leaving an overall deficit for the proposals of 36 MECU (£24m).
However, my right hon. Friend and others in the Council are striving to neutralise the effects of that half a million tonnes of butter as much as possible.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: How?

Mr. Thompson: How unusual. I turn, expecting my hon. Friend to be extending his hand. I move on.
The kind contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) was most welcome. He spoke clearly for the dairy farmers in his constituency.
As to the remarks of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), we agree that in Britain, 8,000 farmers took up the various outgoers' schemes. In Europe alone, 6 million tonnes of butter were removed, and in Great Britain we took out 20 per cent. of our production. How many farmers will want to return under the scheme is not known, but those in Great Britain who satisfy the conditions when they finally emerge amended and not unamended—and I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the satisfaction, which word I do not use in any derogatory sense, of saying that they will not be unamended—will be able to join the scheme, as will all European members.

Mr. Ron Davies: For the sake of the accuracy of the record, will the Minister confirm that his Department has accurate records of those applicants who participated in the two outgoers schemes in 1978 and who, after the introduction of quotas, subsequently made quota applications?

Mr. Thompson: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a categorical answer to his question this evening. I shall take it up with my officials and see exactly what the situation is. It is no use doing the work twice. We must first see how the scheme as amended turns out.

Mr. Allen McKay: I refer to a constituency case that I thought was dead—that concerning Eric Lodge. The Minister may recall that Mr. Lodge's land was only good for milk production because of previous opencasting. Subsidence wrecked his cow house and all his feeding sheds, and by the time the board put that right, the quota was introduced—so he had a marvellous farm and cow house but no cows. That was because of the quota system. He made a quota application but was turned down. Is it possible that the new provision will allow him to enter the scheme again?

Mr. Thompson: Distressing though the case is, I do not think that that gentleman will fall within the ambit of the scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke mentioned the 64 per cent. of hardship cases—cases like that of the hon. Gentleman's friend—that were initially turned down. I do not think that I can give the hon. Gentleman any hope, but I shall look into the matter if he will write to me about it. I shall also write to the hon. Member for Caerphilly if I can get together a reasonable and concrete letter without undue expenditure of time and money. Once the document has been amended and has passed through the Council, we shall have a clearer idea of the answers that he has asked for.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8108/88 on milk and milk products and of the Government's intention to pursue agreement which meets the requirements of the European Court's judgement while containing costs and ensuring that the effectiveness of milk quotas is maintained.

Orders of the Day — New Zealand Butter

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8961/88 on New Zealand butter and of the Government's intention to pursue agreement to these proposals which meet the aim of establishing arrangements for the continued access of New Zealand butter on special terms for the period 1989–92 in a way which represents a reasonable balance between the interests of those involved.
The document contains the Commission's proposals for dealing with future arrangements for the import of New Zealand butter into this country. The treaty of accession to the Community, in recognition of our traditional trading links with New Zealand, provided that decreasing quantities of New Zealand butter could be imported over a five-year period at a reduced rate of import levy. The treaty also provided that the arrangements could be extended by unanimous decision of the Council of Ministers, acting on the basis of a Commission proposal.
The importance to New Zealand of its butter exports to this country was acknowledged by Community Heads of Government meeting in Dublin in 1975, and the special arrangements have been extended by the Council on a number of occasions since then. The quantities of New Zealand butter permitted to enter the United Kingdom at the preferential rate of levy have been reduced from just over 165,800 tonnes in 1973 to 74,500 tonnes in 1988, reflecting the continuing decline in United Kingdom butter consumption.

Mr. Simon Coombs: What has been the percentage reduction in the consumption of butter in this country since the last time the New Zealand quota was decided?

Mr. MacGregor: I have not the precise figures for the last three years. I think that the reduction is between 5 and 7·5 per cent., but I shall check the figure, and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will respond at the end of the debate.
That substantial and continuing decline in consumption—it is probably rather larger than my figures suggest—is one of the problems facing the dairy sector as a whole.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: In 1976 the Commission recommended that the figure for New Zealand imports should be 25 per cent. but, because consumption has fallen, New Zealand butter now accounts for 37 per cent. of the market.

Mr. MacGregor: Those figures are not quite right, but I shall deal with my hon. Friend's point later.
The present arrangements for New Zealand butter imports expire at the end of the year. The document explains the Commission's proposals for the continuation of imports between 1989 and 1992. The proposals have two main elements. First, a cut of 10,000 tonnes in the quantity of imports, to 64,500 tonnes, is proposed for 1989, followed by equal annual reductions to 55,000 tonnes in 1992. Secondly, it is proposed to reduce the rate of levy from 25 to 15 per cent. of the butter intervention price from 1 January 1989.
The proposed reduction in the quantity of New Zealand butter imports over the next four years reflects the trend

since accession and the continuing fall in overall United Kingdom butter consumption. The proposed reduction in the rate of import levy would partly offset the loss in revenue to New Zealand from the cut in quantity. The Commission's proposals would therefore be consistent with the Community's international obligations. They imply a reduction of 26 per cent. in New Zealand imports by 1992, which is twice the reduction in Community milk production since the introduction of milk quotas, and more than double the annual percentage rate of reduction in butter imports under the previous arrangements. However, in terms of the total United Kingdom butter market, our estimates suggest that if the Commission's proposals were adopted. New Zealand supplies would represent about the same share of the market as they do under the present arrangements.
The Commission's proposals would ensure continuity of supply of New Zealand butter to the British consumer. We believe that it would be unlikely to have any significant effect on retail prices, or any significant adverse effect on the United Kingdom and Community taxpayer. Now that the support arrangements in the milk sector have been tightened and intervention stocks substantially reduced, it is unlikely that significant quantities of butter will enter public storage in the foreseeable future. Therefore, the budgetary costs of the concession to New Zealand will be considerably lower than might previously have been the case.
I should like to emphasise one point about which there is still considerable misunderstanding among United Kingdom farmers. As New Zealand and all other butter imports were excluded from the original calculation of United Kingdom dairy quotas—the original basis was past production by our own producers—whatever decisions are taken about the future arrangements, they will have no effect on United Kingdom quotas. It is important to stress that point, because there is a great deal of misunderstanding about it. Some people believe that if New Zealand butter imports were reduced even further than is provided for in the Commission's proposals that would lead to an increase in United Kingdom dairy quotas. It would not.
I have a few words to say about the amendment. The concerns that are expressed there are fully met by the Commission's proposals.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Some members of the Council of Agriculture Ministers have criticised the package and may have been trying to unravel it. How does the Minister view his role in regard to those critics? Is he actively promoting the package, and will he continue to do so?

Mr. MacGregor: I shall make my position on that clear at the end of my speech. It would be more natural to do so in that context. There are many varying points of view on both this and many other proposals that are before the Council of Ministers. Criticism has been voiced by many Ministers, often from conflicting standpoints. Some of them are inevitably linking the butter proposals with the sheepmeat proposals, because New Zealand is involved in both. My view is that there is no legal link between the two, but some Ministers are making that link. The sheepmeat proposals are being criticised widely by nearly all Ministers—again from many different points of view. There is nothing unusual about that.
As for some of the concerns that have been expressed—not least in the amendment, which has not been called, but which highlights some of the concerns—I believe that the Commission's proposals meet them. It is important to remember, as I have stressed throughout, that butter consumption in the United Kingdom has been falling for a number of years, and I expect it to continue to fall. If the proposal is adopted, I expect the New Zealand share of the total United Kingdom butter market to fall only very slightly—so slightly that its share will be about the same as it is now over the four years of the agreement. I expect the New Zealand share of the packet butter market to continue to increase somewhat, as it has done in recent years. Consumer choice would therefore be broadly the same.
As for the consistency of the proposal with the Community's commitments at the start of the Uruguay round, which we shall discuss in the mid-term review in Montreal next week, it could be argued that as the New Zealand arrangement is a unilateral concession by the Community there is no legal obligation on the Community to maintain it after it runs out at the end of this year. The New Zealanders are, however, perfectly at liberty to appeal to the spirit of these undertakings to justify continued access. It is in any event reasonable that the proposal should provide for a continuing reduction in the New Zealand quota in line with what has happened in the past and with the continuing decline in our butter market. The proposal is consistent with the Community's commitments on the Uruguay round and, as my hon. Friends will have noticed, it is endorsed by the New Zealand Government.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My right hon. Friend is trying to justify the proposal, but in view of the dramatically changed circumstances since we joined the Community, the advent of quotas and the reduction in butter consumption, can we continue to justify the substantial import of New Zealand butter, bearing in mind the loss of jobs in creameries throughout the country and the grave problems faced by many people in creameries and other areas of milk and butter manufacture?

Mr. MacGregor: New Zealand has accepted reductions in British imports of its butter recently in line with reductions in butter consumption. Under these proposals there will be a rather sharper decline in butter imports than there will he in milk quotas in the Community. Any reductions in imports from New Zealand, however, would not have any effect on quotas and, therefore, on creameries.
We have still to take a decision on these matters in Council. In theory it will be done before the end of the calendar year, but the recent progress in the Council of Ministers leads me to suggest that we might be being optimistic in thinking that we will reach agreement before the end of the calendar year. This is therefore an opportune moment for the House to express its views. I suspect that, in contrast to the previous debate, we shall hear some contrary views on this subject, just as very different points of view are being expressed in the Council.
Many interests are involved—Community producers, consumers and taxpayers—and there are the Community's obligations to New Zealand. The Government believe that

the Commission's proposals represent a reasonable balance between them. and that is the point of view that I have been expressing in the Council.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I have to tell the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the names of the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) and his hon. Friends.

Dr. David Clark: The Minister rightly said that this is probably an issue which will prove quite divisive and lively. We have had some good debates on it. It stirs many emotions. I do not apologise for that. The House knows that politics is not always determined by logic. Sometimes it is determined by emotion.
Many of us feel that we owe a debt of gratitude to the New Zealand people. Some of us remember that, in the early 1970s, when we were arguing the case against our entry into the EEC, one of our greatest worries was what the status of New Zealand would be. Many of us were very pleased that we were able to achieve protocol 18 of the 1972 accession legislation, which gave some continuity and hope to New Zealand dairying.
The New Zealanders have adapted remarkably. They now send considerably less butter to Britain than they did in 1972. According to a parliamentary answer given to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) on 2 February, in 1986, 27 per cent. of the United Kingdom butter market was provided by New Zealand. I use the Government's figures.
As we consider the argument and the problems that the Minister faces in negotiations in the Council of Ministers, we hope that he will fight the New Zealand corner—and we wish him well.
I regret that there is a considerable amount of misinformation—I use that word and not "disinformation"—about this matter and regret the hostility from the National Farmers Union of England and Wales, the Milk Marketing Board and the Farmers Union of Wales, which feel that the New Zealand Government and people are being treated too generously. I do not share that view.
I remind the House and the NFU that farmers in New Zealand produce that butter without a single penny of subsidy and that they can send that butter halfway round the world and jump a tariff barrier of about £500 per tonne, and still compete with European butter. We are talking about a very efficient argriculture, which is not protected.
In enunciating such views, I take comfort from the fact that I have the support not only of many of my hon. Friends but of hon. Members of all parties. I was pleased to see early-day motion 543 in the last Parliament. It was sponsored by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and others, and attracted over 200 signatures. I note that there is an amendment to this motion that broadly goes along the same lines and urges the Government to stand up and fight for the New Zealand point of view.
There is considerable misunderstanding about this matter. As I go around the country and talk to farmers and at NFU group meetings, I find the misconception that if we could get rid of the New Zealanders, our milk quota would be increased. Therefore, it was rewarding to hear


the Minister state the position categorically. We cannot repeat it too often. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) repeated it clearly in a written answer on 8 May 1986:
The United Kingdom milk quota, like those of other member states, is based on past national production levels with no account being taken of imports from New Zealand or any other source."—[Official Report, 8 May 1986; Vol. 97, c. 238.]
I have repeated that because it needs repeating as the message has still not got across, and it is because the message has not got across that there are so many misconceptions.
Another misconception is that we guarantee a market for New Zealand butter. Of course we do not. What we do guarantee is the opportunity of entry for New Zealand butter. Once the butter is in this country, it must compete with every other brand or make of butter, whatever its origin, on a strictly commercial basis. People buy New Zealand butter because by and large they want to buy New Zealand butter. They do not buy it because there is no alternative. The brand name "Anchor" is one of the premier brand names in this country. I hesitate to mention this, but I think that I should remind hon. Members of what the Prime Minister said on 19 May:
People here still wish to purchase that country's butter.—[Official Report, 19 May 1988; Vol. 133, c. 1088.]
It would be wrong for us to take steps that are too rigorous and to stop people having the choice of New Zealand butter. We in the Labour party believe that people should have the freedom to choose that brand of butter.
As we have heard, the consumption of butter has been falling in recent years. I suggest that, if we took draconian steps and banned New Zealand butter, as some responsible people advocate, consumption of butter would fall even further.
As with many other products, demand for butter is sustained and stimulated by advertising. I think that about £8 million a year is spent on advertising it in Britain, and of that amount, £6 million is contributed by the New Zealand Dairy Board. If New Zealand butter was not coming into Britain, that shortfall in advertising would not be made up and the result would be an even steeper fall in the consumption of butter in Britain. Overall, British butter producers would not benefit.
Another reason for being careful about restricting the access of New Zealand butter—the Ministers touched upon this—is the whole issue of the current GATT negotiations. I am mindful, as I know the Minister is, that the next round of the Uruguay talks will take place on 5 December in Montreal. The spirit of most countries is that world agricultural trade should be liberalised and subsidies reduced, with resulting benefit to Third-world and other countries. That spirit is correct.
The EEC has given a commitment to liberalise trade and it would seem strange if at the same time we were leaning towards more protectionism by restricting the entry of New Zealand butter. As I have said, just over one quarter, 27 per cent., of the United Kingdom butter market is in the hands of the New Zealanders. They have obtained it through competition and brand loyalty. The Opposition are committed to the entry of New Zealand butter to Britain.
I realise that the Minister is engaged in a complicated set of negotiations involving not only butter. As he says,

there is also lamb, which is covered by a firm GATT agreement. The issue of top fruit was discussed earlier this year. I hope that the message he takes from the House is that the overwhelming majority of hon. Members—including all Opposition Members and probably a majority of Conservative Members—feel that it is his duty to go to Europe and fight the other Ministers on behalf of the New Zealand producers. That is the will and the desire of the British people.

Sir Richard Body: I beg to move, at the end of the Question to add,
'but much regrets the restriction on consumer choice for British housewives caused by the proposed further reduction of 25 per cent. in the New Zealand quota, and urges Her Majesty's Government to consider whether the proposal is consistent with the pledge given by all the participating nations at the start of the Uruguay round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade that no new barriers to trade would be introduced while the negotiations continued.'.
I hope that my hon. Friends who have come into the Chamber clutching their briefs from the National Farmers Union will go back to their constituencies echoing what has been said about the effect that any cut in quota will have on our dairy farmers. It is not only our dairy farmers who will be affected, but our arable farmers too. I am glad to say that I have many arable farmers in my constituency. We should never talk about milk or milk products without having regard to the interests of the arable farmers who produce the feed grains that go to the dairy herds.
For the life of me I can see no prospect of any arable or dairy farmer benefiting in the slightest by the proposed cut in butter imports. Surely it is common sense that not a tonne, not an ounce, not a pat of New Zealand butter can come to Britain unless the British people say that they wish to buy it. No one can dispute that. Therefore, we are talking about an attack on the preferences of the British people.
The New Zealand Dairy Board has for decades been advertising butter and promoting it in a way that the Milk Marketing Board has failed to do. It is a disgrace that the Milk Marketing Board insists that we must agree to cuts in the imports of New Zealand butter when it has done so little for decades to promote butter and has left it to the New Zealanders to do the task.
The New Zealand Dairy Board has not only advertised butter and promoted it for years, but has gone out of its way to blend a type of butter to suit the British palate. It has taken endless pains to achieve that end. According to all the market research, the majority of people prefer to eat that kind of butter, which is blended to suit their palate. Therefore, if there is a further cut in the amount of butter that we shall be allowed to eat of our own choice, that is an attack on freedom of choice. That is something that we treasure and wish to promote.
I know that my right hon. Friend will go to the Council of Ministers and fight hard for our consumers. I hope that he will draw the attention of his colleagues to protocol 18 of the treaty of accession, to which he referred earlier on. It is because of that protocol that we are required to import a declining quantity of New Zealand butter.
That article had two parts to it. One was that we would accept a decline in the amount of New Zealand butter that we were allowed to eat, and the other was a pledge by the Common Market not to do anything to frustrate New Zealand from seeking markets elsewhere. We debated that


for a long time. Those of us who can remember those awful dreary debates that we had about our accession to the Community will remember that New Zealand butter was one of the main sticking points, and we were given an assurance that the EEC would do nothing to make it difficult for New Zealand to find export markets elsewhere.
What happened? Our butter production went up, and when New Zealand sought to sell butter to Hong Kong, an island without a single dairy cow, as far as I know, and almost on the doorstep of New Zealand—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Well, we live in a small world. If I have my geography right, New Zealand is nearer to Hong Kong than to the Common Market. However, when New Zealand tried to promote the sale of butter at a competitive price to Hong Kong, in went butter from the Common Market, dumped at a ridiculous price, so New Zealand lost that market. New Zealand went to Moscow and sought a market there, and again butter from the EEC was dumped and it lost that market. Wherever the New Zealand Dairy Board has sought an outlet for its products, the EEC has gone in and denied it that market.
The Common Market has broken the pledge that it gave under protocol 18 of the treaty of accession. I hope that my right hon. Friend will emphasise that when he mets his colleagues. New Zealand has cut its dairy production again and again, although it is the lowest cost producer in the world. It has fought hard to find markets elsewhere, but every time that it has done so it has been thwarted by the funds—raised from our money—of the Community.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will emphasise a point that was mentioned by the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and is included in the amendment—the fact that the Common Market gave a further pledge at the beginning of the Uruguay round not to impose any fresh barrier upon trade with third countries until the completion of the GATT negotiations. If the Community goes ahead with that further barrier against New Zealand's trade with us, it will be in breach of that undertaking. I hope that the Community will not contemplate that step until the GATT negotiations are complete.
I am sure that the House and the consumers of this country will wish my right hon. Friend well in his negotiations. I hope that our farmers also will wish him well, in the knowledge that they cannot lose by New Zealand continuing to send butter to this country. The promotion of butter needs to be financed by the New Zealand Dairy Board to sustain our dairy farmers. It is a paradox that our dairy farmers have in the past gained as a result of the board's skills in promoting butter in the past few decades.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will give the firmest assurances that he will argue as strenuously as he can for the interests of the British people.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I do not have an interest to declare, but I am married to a New Zealander and breed New Zealanders in captivity under licence in this country part-time.
I was in New Zealand throughout the 1960s as the New Zealand equivalent of Robin Day, although not as well paid. I remember a series of British Ministers, both Conservative and Labour, coming out throughout the

1960s. I interviewed most of them and on television and to the public generally they gave solemn and sincere assurances that New Zealand interests would be safeguarded and defended by the British Government, that New Zealand would have continued access to the British market and that the traditional and close trading relationship would be maintained. Those assurances were given by Minister after Minister into the 1970s, when we finally went into the EEC. Perhaps New Zealand was a little trusting in heeding those assurances without demanding more definite quid pro quos, but they were certainly intended at the time. I regard it, therefore, as a matter of honour, and the curtailment of New Zealand access, which is implicit in these proposals, is wrong and immoral.
The Minister, whose work has been impressive in many other spheres, has not fought has strenuously as I and many of his hon. Friends should have liked to defend New Zealand's access to this market. The reduction in quota from 165,000 tonnes in 1973 to 55,000 tonnes in 1992 is a 26 per cent. reduction on 1988 imports and is a faster rate of reduction than before.
The butter negotiations have been tied in with the sheepmeat treaty, which was a treaty obligation. They should not have been tied together. The Minister's position has been more ambiguous than it should have been. His defence of New Zealand interests has not been as strong as I should have liked. I can understand that, because it is not a happy position for a Conservative Minister of Agriculture to be unpopular with those involved in agriculture. By reducing milk output, he has not been in the happy position of his right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) when he was Minister of Agriculture.
It is wrong that the National Farmers Union, individual farmers and Conservative Back-Bench Members should attack New Zealand access. Their argument is misguided, as the Minister has said. It is wrong even to insinuate that there should be a reduction of the New Zealand quota. A reduction of New Zealand butter imports would not lead to a better milk quota for the United Kingdom. If there were to be an increased quota, it would be followed pari passu by the other members of the EEC. The effect in the United Kingdom would be minuscule. There would be an increase in the price of milk and, therefore, an increase in the price of butter. The consumption of butter would decrease and the only beneficiaries would be the margarine manufacturers, not the farmers who are attacking New Zealand access. It seems that we would be going to a great deal of trouble to benefit the margarine manufacturers.
The Minister should have fought more strenuously in Britain and in the rest of Europe. It is clear that we do riot have a good deal. I warn the Minister that there will be anger in the House. That is shown clearly by early-day motion No. 543 of the previous Session, which was signed by over 200 Members, and by the amendment which has been moved tonight. There will be anger in the country as well if the Minister does not respond. He must fight to the utmost to prevent any undermining that could follow from what has already happened.
We have a moral obligation to New Zealand. Furthermore, there is a consumer issue. Consumers want New Zealand butter. They like New Zealand butter and they buy it. They are accustomed to the taste of New Zealand butter. Consumer organisations want sustained


access for New Zealand so that consumers can buy the butter that they want and should be able to secure. It is unreasonable for the Minister to say that, because consumers want New Zealand butter and because the product can hold its share of the market, it is legitimate to reduce access in order to increase market share because of consumer preference. That is a tortuous argument.
As has been said, New Zealand is the only substantial advertiser of butter. Of the £8 million that was spent on advertising butter last year, £6 million was spent by New Zealand. Against that, £16 million is spent on advertising margarine. It is clear that the consumer wants New Zealand butter, and as a result of advertising New Zealand is sustaining the demand for butter generally.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: What is the hon. Gentleman's attitude to Icelandic cod in Grimsby?

Mr. Mitchell: That is a silly question at this moment. It is irrelevant as well. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman regards it as a humorous question. In fact, we want Icelandic cod in Grimsby because we want to maintain the processing side of the industry. Similarly, the consumer wants New Zealand butter. I do not see the relevance of the hon. Gentleman's question, but he has his answer.
This is a trade issue as New Zealand is one of the few countries in the world with which Britain trades successfully. Our annual trade with New Zealand amounts to £1 billion—visibles and invisibles—and we are actually in surplus. That is a unique phenomenon for Britain. At a time when we have such a horrendous trade deficit, why should we allow a substantial market for British goods and services to be undermined by the reductions in quota that are implicit in the document? We should support our markets and our friends.
As the hon Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) said, protocol 18 of the treaty of accession gave solemn undertakings that the EEC would not frustrate New Zealand's efforts to develop alternative markets and to diversify its sales. That undertaking has not been kept in any respect. Wherever New Zealand has tried to develop alternative markets for butter, wherever it has got its butter exports going, it has been counteracted by large-scale dumping of EEC butter. That was done not only to compete with New Zealand's exports, but to depress the price of butter on the world market. The solemn obligation has in no way been sustained by the EEC. Having failed in that crucial respect, although New Zealand took the plunge and agreed to diversify its markets, to start now to reduce New Zealand's access to this market is unreasonable.
New Zealand's share of the British butter market went down from one third in 1970 to about 27 per cent. in 1986. Despite all my efforts to the contrary—and I have been magnificent—the butter market has shrunk. It is half what it was when we entered the EEC. New Zealand's trade has diversified enormously. Nine tenths of its trade came here before the war. Now nine tenths of it goes elsewhere, but 45 per cent. of New Zealand's butter export earnings are still made in this market. It is crucial to the New Zealand economy because 14 per cent. of New Zealand's total exports come from the dairy industry.
Curtailment of the quota will be a bitter blow for an economy that is facing real difficulties. For a highly

efficient primary producer, which developed as this country's farm in the antipodes, it will be a bitter blow to farmers whose standards of living have been cut drastically and who have been hit hard by what has happened to world agricultural trade. This will be a further blow which we in this country should not countenance.
Why should we cut New Zealand's access to this market in any respect? I regard the Minister's stand on this as equivocal. What economic sense does it make to penalise New Zealand—the most efficient producer in the world, with which we trade successfully and in surplus—and to be forced to buy over-priced, inefficiently produced butter from the EEC, from nations with which we are in a horrendous trade deficit, which is getting worse every year? The proposal to cut quotas will be a serious blow to our trade with New Zealand. The proposal is a moral and political folly of national self-interest. We should not reduce the quota, as the Minister evisages; we should sustain New Zealand's access as much as we possibly can.

Mr. David Curry: There is no point in discussing this issue unless we put it in the context of decision making within the European Community. That lays down the framework of the debate.
It is not an option to preserve the status quo, because the present entitlement lapses at the end of the year and legally the Community could simply say that no butter should be imported if the rules are not renewed. As the original agreement talks about transitional arrangements, that clearly envisaged progressive reductions.
However, it is not an option to seek to wipe New Zealand off the face of the map. There are reasons for that. First, there is a common interest between the Community and New Zealand in trying to maintain prices on the world market. There has been some success. The minimum price was $1,000 per tonne at the start of the year, $1,100 in March and $1,250 in September; it is now being traded at $1,400 and some sales have been concluded at $1,600 per tonne, including sales by the New Zealand Dairy Board. Secondly, in the light of the GATT negotiations, the Community would not be in good order going into those negotiations if it were to introduce the proposed cuts for the New Zealand quota which were out of line with the reductions that had been progressive over previous years.
That is the framework within which the decisions must be taken. A political compromise will be struck and the interest lies in the requirements for the compromise. I believe that the first interest is a continuing choice for the consumer in the United Kingdom and availability of New Zealand butter broadly with the same proportion that we had before, in a declining market place, as all hon. Members have noticed. The second is a fair deal for New Zealand, because, as hon. Members have said, New Zealand has invested in the marketing network in the United Kingdom and put a major proportion of its advertising expenditure into the United Kingdom and is entitled to look for a fair revenue for its producers.
The final requirement is justice for British and European farmers, who have taken significant cuts in their quotas and who feel that all participants in the market place should share that burden, although they have realised a major capital asset in the dairy quotas. The cost of disposing of the surpluses and making the mountains


disappear has been borne by the taxpayer as well as by the producer, and sometimes each side in that equation forgets the other.
On that assessment, is the deal fair? The cuts are not draconian; they are not as high as expected. Most people would have punted the Commission's opening bet at around 50,000 tonnes. It is significantly higher than that. The reduction in the levy seeks to compensate in revenue for the cut in quantities sent by New Zealand farmers. In my experience, what matters to farmers is the bottom line of the account. Consumer choice is preserved because the cuts are broadly in line with those that have taken place historically, and the European farmer cannot say that a 14 per cent. cut in the New Zealand quota is not a severe measure.
It has to be emphasised that any other proposal could be worse. What the Commission has put on the table is the best that New Zealand will get. Any amendment will be worse for New Zealand: that is the political reality. It is an illusion to think that a cut in the New Zealand quota will produce one extra gramme for British dairy farmers. The quota will not be redistributed. We could argue that, if New Zealand butter did not come in, perhaps there would be a little extra for everyone across the Community, but even that is very doubtful. I believe that the reaction of the New Zealanders, with all the marketing effort that they have put in, would be to buy continental butter and put it into Anchor packs. There is nothing to prevent them from marketing continental butter in the United Kingdom under the Anchor label.
The market in Europe is not yet in such perfect balance as people suggest. There may be only 100,000 tonnes of unsold butter in public storage. However, liquid skimmed milk is still being subsidised into calves' feed at 53 ecu a tonne, and skimmed milk powder is being subsidised into calves' feed at 650 ecu per tonne. Therefore, it is ridiculous to talk about the market having undergone some miraculous transition to balance. There is still a long way to go. Butter is being subsidised into pastry-making, ice cream and other manufacturing projects.
The proposals represent a balanced view, and, as my right hon. Friend the Minister said, we have to consider them with the lamb and sheepmeat proposals. Most people consider it a package, although the legal status of the two agreements is wholly different—one is a bilateral deal and one is a voluntary restraint within the overall framework of the GATT. With the proposal to cut the New Zealand lamb entitlement to a level still above the historic level of New Zealand shipments—with some limitation on chilled lamb, which in some senses is more sensitive to the United Kingdom market—the Commission has produced a cleverly worked package, which may be one of Commissioner Andriessen's last measures as Agricultural Commissioner before he takes on his new role as Commissioner for External Relations.
This is a well-wrought deal. It is fair to all the parties concerned, given that the Commission had to square a circle containing very conflicting interests. I believe that the housewife has the same proportion of choice that she had before. The European farmer cannot complain that his pain is not shared by others. The combination of the cuts and the levy change for New Zealand maintains the revenue expectations of that country and justifies its input into the promotion of the butter market.
I commend to my right hon. Friend the view that, within the confines of his negotiations, he should seek to

promote the deal, as it comes as near as we are likely to get into the practical political circumstances of producing something supportable, even if all parties are not ecstatic about it. It is a well-wrought package and he would do well to defend it as it now exists.

Mr. Geraint Howells: The National Farmers Union and the Government appear to be at loggerheads over the issue of New Zealand butter. Perhaps the Minister will explain why. The NFU represents a large number of producers in this country. The NFU's view is also taken by the Milk Marketing Board, which has served the dairy industry well for the past 50 years. It is also the view of the Dairy Trade Federation. They are all agreed that the New Zealand butter quota should be reduced to 40,000 tonnes next year and be abolished by 1992. There is a great deal of disagreement among the unions, the trade, the Milk Marketing Board and the Government. It would be helpful to know why.
There has been a 15-year transitional period and the dairy trade is wondering how long it will continue. Hon. Members on both sides have said that we would not have an additional milk quota if the New Zealand butter quota were abolished.
I should be grateful for clarification on the question of profitability, which is important to British farmers. The Government are duty bound to look after the interests of their dairy farmers. I still believe that we should treat New Zealand gently and allow it to continue to send butter to this country, and, so long as the Minister does his utmost to safeguard the interests of British dairy producers and consumers, he will have the blessing of my party.

Mr. Michael Jopling: I agree with the remarks of the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells). I especially agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) said in his outstandingly clear speech.
The House is beginning to realise what a contentious issue this is and always has been. Various arguments are deployed. There are those who say that there should be more, even unlimited, access to New Zealand butter. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) has almost made it his life's work to find every conceivable argument from the bottom of the barrel to criticise the European Community. We are all familiar with that, and it is the gist of the amendment. There are others who say that New Zealand butter imports should be abolished as soon as possible.
Like many hon. Members, I have spent a large part of the past four or five years travelling around the country to speak at farmers' meetings. I often met strong objections to New Zealand butter imports. I discovered that almost all the criticism was based on the false assumption that if those imports were abolished there would somehow be increased quotas for Britain and, possibly, the Community. That is erroneous, and my right hon. Friend has nailed that argument. Many of the cries from farmers and the Milk Marketing Board are based on that erroneous assumption. I hope that we can kill that.
We must put the position of New Zealand imports into its historic context. I well remember that in the early 1970s, when we were negotiating to join the Community—the team was led, I think, by Lord Rippon as he now is—some


issues came up time and time again. There was the issue of sugar imports from the developing countries, and there was the issue of New Zealand butter imports. I notice that some of the people who, 15 years ago, insisted on the need to maintain New Zealand's share in the United Kingdom butter market are now saying that it should be eliminated altogether so that perhaps our farmers would get some extra quota. That is a silly argument and one to which we should not listen.
I hope that we shall hear no more from the Opposition about it being wrong to reduce the amount of New Zealand butter that has been imported over the years. I remind Members on the Opposition Front Bench that the amount of New Zealand butter imports decreased during the yew's of their Government, as it was their Minister who negotiated that decrease.
I feel that the proposal to go down to about 55,000 tonnes in 1992 is about right. I understand that the New Zealanders have said that this is the lowest level that they can accept and, like my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon, I was pleasantly surprised that the Commissioner did not put a somewhat lower figure on it. I believe that it is about right, but I warn the Minister that there will be those in the Council of Ministers who will take this proposed figure as the starting point. I can anticipate the arguments of, perhaps, the French and Irish Ministers, who will use this as a starting point from which to negotiate a significantly lower figure. I hope that my right hon. Friend will support the Commission and resist any suggestions that this figure should be further reduced.
I believe that we have a continuing debt to New Zealand because of what it did to support Britain in two world wars, and we should never forget that. It would be a tragic mistake if we were to sell New Zealand down the river, and we are not doing so with these proposals. As my right hon. Friend said, they will mean that New Zealand's share of our butter market will be more or less maintained. That is the key, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will support the Commission in sticking to these proposals.

Mr. Simon Coombs: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this debate. I have an interest in this matter. The New Zealand dairy products that are imported are processed and prepared for sale at the Anchor Foods factory in Swindon. Some £25 million has been invested in a modern factory, providing excellent working conditions and employing 400 of my constituents. A substantial number of those jobs are for unskilled workers, and, as elsewhere, there is a diminishing number of such jobs in Swindon. There can be little doubt that a reduction of nearly 20,000 tonnes of New Zealand butter during the next four years would mean redundancies among those of my constituents who work for the Anchor Foods company. The loss of £40 million in turnover a year could not easily be replaced by diversification.
Of course, as has been said several times, this is not the final decision of the Community; it is a proposal. Will the Minister give an undertaking that the Government will support this proposal to the full, without the possible consideration of any further concession? If my right hon. Friend is unable to give that commitment or unable to deliver in the negotiations, the viability of the factory in

my constituency will be at risk, 400 jobs will be on the line, and to what purpose? It has already been said many times tonight that nothing that happens as a result of the negotiations on New Zealand butter will affect the British farmer one iota. If the total imports of New Zealand butter were distributed throughout the Community, it would give each of our farmers only a couple of extra pints a year.
The housewife has already been mentioned. We should consider what the consumer wants. A survey of more than 1,000 housewives who buy butter was conducted in March and April. It revealed that 84 per cent. of all respondents thought that New Zealand should be able to continue to sell butter in Britain; 9 per cent. disagreed; and 7 per cent. did not know. It revealed that 79 per cent. of all respondents thought the people of Britain should be allowed to buy as much Anchor butter as they want and 54 per cent. of that total expressed their favourable feelings strongly. Do my right hon. and hon. Friends believe in free trade? Do they believe in the consumer's right of free choice in our markets? The survey continued:
84 per cent. of all respondents said yes, they did think the British Government should continue to make sure people can buy New Zealand butter in Britain, while 7 per cent. said no and 10 per cent. did not know. Of those 84 per cent., 94 per cent. agreed that the British Government should insist that the Common Market continues to allow people to buy New Zealand butter in Britain. Of those, 30 per cent. expressed their agreement extremely strongly, 31 per cent. very strongly and 30 per cent. fairly strongly.
Is my right hon. Friend the housewife's friend? Will he stick out for the interests of our consumers?
The reduction in the New Zealand butter quota would not increase United Kingdom milk quotas one jot. When the national production levels were originally calculated and the quotas were set, they took no account of New Zealand butter. It is worth repeating what my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) told the Select Committee on Agriculture on 24 February 1987:
there is no question that if we did not have the New Zealand butter our quota would in some way be larger; in fact it would not affect the production of farmers, because even if the whole of the New Zealand production was taken over by British butter, all it would mean would be that it would have to come out of our present quota.
One cannot say plainer than that, and my right hon. Friend has repeated that message tonight. Those who believe that that is not the case should read this debate in Hansard and appreciate that crucial point.
The only cut in New Zealand dairy imports that could be justified is that which reflects the national, overall reduction in our consumption of butter. When I intervened in my right hon. Friend's speech, he said that, in the past three years, butter consumption had dropped between 5 and 7·5 per cent. We are being asked to contemplate a reduction, however, of more than 25 per cent. in the New Zealand butter import quota for the next four years. I do not believe that those figures are in phase. What we are being asked to agree tonight is in excess of what equity demands, let alone what our consumers require.
The Government should be prepared to return to the table in Brussels and argue for a better deal for New Zealand butter than that contained in the present proposal. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take note of my objections on behalf of my constituents.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: This is a sad episode in a long and sorry story. Once again representatives of our Government—one devoted to principles of free trade abroad and non-intervention at home—have put before the House documents that do violence to both. That is a great shame. Earlier, it was pointed out that when we joined the Community in 1973, we entered into a compact on behalf of New Zealand whereby it would be limited in the amount of butter that it could send to Britain. However, in the Dublin declaration annexed to the protocol we agreed that the Community would not deprive New Zealand of essential outlets.
It may he thought ironic—or not, as the case may be—that that provision was contained in a Dublin declaration. During Question Time yesterday the Prime Minister said in respect of other Dublin declarations:
although the Government of the Republic of Ireland make fine-sounding speeches and statements, they do not always seem to be backed up by the appropriate deeds."—[Official Report, 29 November 1988; Vol. 142, c. 575.]
That accusation can also be made of the Community.
In 1973 we imported about 165,000 tonnes of New Zealand butter. Today the figure is less than half that. Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who seems to be limiting his access to the Chamber—placing himself, unusually, under a voluntary restraint agreement—asked how one could justify continuing New Zealand butter imports. They can be justified because no one is forced to buy New Zealand butter, and imports and sales are determined by consumers. If people did not buy New Zealand butter, not one ounce of it would be imported into this country. New Zealand butter's price is competitive, notwithstanding—and no one has pointed this out—the fact that it attracts a 25 per cent. tariff.
Since 1970 New Zealand's market share has fallen from .33 to 27 per cent. I obtained that figure from a written answer to a question put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), who asked earlier what the figure was. I know that my hon. Friend is a very busy chap and he may not have noticed that answer to his question.
The reduction in New Zealand butter imports over recent years is significant. I was surprised to hear one of my hon. Friends, who is keen that we should import coal into the United Kingdom from other countries to make our own industry more efficient, take a different line in respect of butter. In much the same way Opposition Members are not keen to see coal imports, but are keen to encourage butter imports. I am sure that that has nothing to do with the demographic and occupational make-up of their constituencies. However, as a representative of some of the finest dairying country in Britain, I can tell the House with complete consistency that, as a believer in free trade, I am convinced New Zealand should continue to enjoy the freest possible access to our markets.
I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), who, in an otherwise lucid and realistic speech, remarked that the proposed cuts were not draconian, when they are the largest cuts yet advanced in relation to New Zealand's market, amounting to 25 per cent. over the four-year period, with a cut of 10,000 tonnes this year alone. Notwithstanding the fact that the levy will be reduced from 25 to 15 per cent. that will not compensate New Zealand for its losses on access, which will lead to an

overall fall in income of 16 per cent. It has been pointed out that the levy will lead to no compensating or countervailing benefit for British farmers.
Butter consumption is falling, and no doubt it will continue doing so. One reason is that consumers are having to pay many times more for butter than they would in a free market. In 1973, butter prices were the same as margarine. Today, butter is two and a half times more expensive. The reason is the protection racket that is the common agricultural policy. Farmers have done trernendous damage to their own interests by the vigour with which they have supported agricultural protection.
That has dawned on farmers in New Zealand. The New Zealand farmers union makes it clear that farmers there are not rattling the begging bowls as they are in this country. They are firmly committed to the principles of free trade, because they know that if they endorse protectionist policies other countries will do the same and agricultural markets will become organised as they are in the Community, to everyone's cost—consumers, taxpayers and producers alike.
As has been said many times this evening, the Community has not kept faith with New Zealand. Community dumping has disrupted New Zealand's markets all over the world, and, although we have reduced the accumulated surpluses that have so exacerbated the problem, there is still no guarantee that in the future the Community will not seek to invade the markets which it agreed in 1973 would be left to New Zealand.
The linking of the reduction in butter imports with the restraints on lamb imports does fundamental violence to our principles of free trade, not only in this country, but in the Community and the wider world, under the GATT negotiations. We agreed in the Uruguay round that we would not seek to increase protectionist barriers against third countries, yet that is precisely what we are seeking to do in the extension of voluntary restraint agreements on lamb. Under the GATT treaties, New Zealand should be able to export unlimited quantities of lamb to the Community at a tariff of 20 per cent., but that was limited by a voluntary restraint agreement in 1980—the kind of "voluntary agreement" that is reached when someone points a gun at a man's head and asks him to hand over his wallet—to 245,000 tonnes at a tariff of 10 per cent. It is now proposed to reduce that to 205,000 tonnes, with further limits on chilled products.
I cannot understand how we can hold our heads high in the world while saying that we favour the reduction of trade barriers and then bring proposals such as this to the House. I appreciate the realism of the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon. I accept that the proposal is probably the best that we shall get. I am not trying to justify it; I am merely being realistic. It is vital that we advertise to people, not only in this country, but elsewhere in the Community, that this is where the buck stops, that the New Zealand Government have reluctantly accepted that this is the best deal that they will get, and look to our Ministers to fight for them as they have in the past and as they have recently declared they will continue to do.
I urge my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to do just that—to stand up for New Zealand, for Britain and for British consumers.

Mr. John Greenway: I shall keep my remarks very brief, as the hour is late. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) made an excellent speech, and I hope one day to emulate his knowledge of these matters.
The debate has been interesting, and I have found it most informative. As my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) pointed out, we receive many briefs on these important issues, not least from our own Whips Office, and they help us to form a sensible judgment on what we should do. One element, however, has been lacking in the debate. We have concentrated entirely on circumstances relating to a particular Commission proposal. I should like my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us how he envisages the position in 1992. If, as my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon suggested, this is the best that we can expect, that will still leave 55,000 tonnes in 1992, when the single European market comes into being.
I take my right hon. Friend's point that any further reduction in New Zealand butter imports would not affect our dairy farmers' quota now. However, the quota arrangement is not permanent but temporary. By about 1992 the quota regime will have to be reconsidered.
The House has shown tonight that it is committed to the moral obligation that was entered into in 1973 to allow access to New Zealand imports, but it is fair to place on record the fact that some hon. Members are equally concerned—in some cases more concerned—about farming interests in our own constituencies. Young dairy farmers, looking to the future, are asking, "What future is there for us in dairy farming, taking into account the present balance in the market place?" We must take their views into account.
I think that the House ought to accept the Commission's proposals, but we shall have to return to the problem. The conflicts that are emerging will have to be addressed. When the single market is in place, I believe that the other member states will resist the import of any New Zealand butter. Our farmers will then ask why all the New Zealand butter has to come to this country.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: My right hon. Friend the Minister has referred to the special regard that the United Kingdom has for New Zealand. He also pointed out that the treaty of Rome reflects that fact. The proposals that we are discussing are a further reflection of that relationship. The largest ANZAC ceremony outside Australasia is held every year on Cannock Chase. Therefore, the Cannock area has a special regard for New Zealand.
I am somewhat sceptical about the EEC. Its attitude towards New Zealand butter is most depressing. I have not participated in previous debates on EEC documents. The document that relates to this debate runs to about 60 pages. It is full of information and figures, and it has made most interesting reading. A most interesting fact is that the document contains scarcely any reference to the consumer. It is an entirely producer-dominated and orientated document. The omission of the consumer from the document confirms that the common agricultural policy has established completely wrong priorities.
Many hon. Members have referred to the arrangements that have been entered into to reduce the amount of New Zealand butter that is permitted to enter the United Kingdom. Imports have been reduced from 166,000 tonnes to 74,500 tonnes during last year. The New Zealand share of the market has not remained static: its share has fallen from 33 per cent. to 27 per cent. It has already suffered a cut. Tonight, New Zealand is being asked to take a further cut and to shoulder a further share of the burden.
Apart from having to accept quota restrictions, New Zealand has also had to pay the levy and compete against home-produced and EEC products. Notwithstanding those hurdles and the falling demand for butter, New Zealand managed to ensure that in 1987 the retail sale price of new Zealand butter in small packs was about 4·4 per cent. less than the price of equivalent United Kingdom butter.
Anchor butter remains the houswife's favourite butter. It has always been and it remains my favourite butter. When I was at school I took it home to Germany where I lived to ensure that I did not have to eat German butter. I have been consistent throughout.
Despite high butter stocks in the United Kingdom, the consumer is clearly exercising his or her choice and preference for New Zealand butter. I am distressed that the Commission is proposing yet more reductions in New Zealand butter quotas. By 1992, they will have fallen to 55,000 tonnes, which is precisely one third of the 1973 quota. The House has to consider how far the Commission may press us in the future. Presumably, it wants ultimately to reduce the figure to zero.
I believe that the interests of the consumer in this matter are paramount, but there are other considerations such as historical association and the fact that New Zealand has tried, with great success, to restructure and liberalise its enonomy. Moreover, we earn more money from our trade with New Zealand than it earns from us.
I hope that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary will take heart from the message given by the House that they should go out and fight for the interests of the British consumer and our friends and allies in New Zealand.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: This has been one of the most realistic and agreeable debates on EEC affairs for many months, probably because of the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body). I want to speak for only one minute.
I hope that the Government will accept that what they are proposing is a reduction in consumer choice. The House should face that fact. The Government may take the view that the proposed reduction of one quarter is consistent with what they think will be the reduction in butter consumption, but nobody can argue that butter consumption will decrease by one quarter during the next five years.
I hope that the most recent activity of the European Commission—it banned imported apples so that housewives had less choice—will get across to the Government the fact that we must ensure that the housewife can buy what she wants, not just what the Common Market has in surplus.
Bearing in mind New Zealand's problems, is there anything that we can do about butter dumping? There is talk of what might happen next year, but we know that dumping has been extraordinarily high during the past 12 months—to the extent of butter being dumped at 2.72p per pound, which is outrageous. Can the Government persuade the Council to ensure that housewives can buy what they want and that dumping is reduced?

Mr. Ron Davies: The Minister will take away tonight the united view of the House of Commons. All who have spoken have been supportive of New Zealand. I have found the debate instructive and constructive, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will draw strength from it. When he negotiates in Europe, I hope that he will remember the message that my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) delivered: that he should fight the case for New Zealand. I am sure that he will have the good will and support of the House when he does that.
I am glad that all hon. Members who have been rising in their places have been called. The case was put admirably by the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body), who brings a distinctive view to these matters. He was supported with great authority by the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). If he were present, I would take issue with my hon. Friend as he made a passing reference to the Minister's predecessor but one. He did the Minister a disservice when he compared him unfavourably with the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker). In previous debates, we have all omitted to observe that, 12 months before milk quotas were introduced, the right hon. Gentleman was stamping round the country telling farmers to produce. If I were offered a choice between the present Minister and the right hon. Member for Worcester, I would settle for them both remaining in their present jobs.
The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) did the House a service by drawing attention to the fact that the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) had not bothered to read the answer to his parliamentary question, tabled earlier this year. I should like to correct the hon. Member for Tatton, as 26 per cent., not 27 per cent., of the United Kingdom butter market is taken by New Zealand imports. That is the 1987 figure, not the rather dated one that the hon. Gentleman used. I am sure that he will update his records and use the former figure in future.
The hon. Member for Tatton did New Zealand a disservice when he mentioned our opposition to imported coal. Our opposition is not to imported coal per se, but to imported coal that is produced under slave labour conditions in South Africa. To attempt to draw a comparison—as the hon. Gentleman did—between the dairy industry in New Zealand and the coal mining industry operating under slave labour conditions in South Africa does a grave disservice to the people of New Zealand, who are our historic friends and allies. The case tonight has been overwhelming. Imports of New Zealand butter provide consumer choice. It is a wholesome product, and is sold at a competitive price. It is part of a trade relationship that is best described by a statement by the New Zealand high commissioner earlier this year:
The visible and invisible trade in each direction is now worth nearly £1 billion a year—though Britain still earns rather more from New Zealand than New Zealand does from Britain …. The remitted profits of British investment in New Zealand alone exceed the receipts from New Zealand's dairy export to Britain.
The Labour party supports our historic and traditional relationship with New Zealand. In the light of arguments such as the one that I have just quoted, I fail to see how a Conservative House of Commons can do other than support these proposals.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Donald Thompson): The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) started, as he ended, by saying that the House supported these proposals. Brevity will mean no discourtesy, as I have only four minutes in which to reply to the debate.
So that the record need not be changed, let me correct my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs), who quoted figures per year, giving a total of 23 per cent., not in toto. That is just to keep that part of the record straight. Those who read Hansard will understand that.
I must start by reminding the House that this agreement must find unanimity in Brussels—and it will be a difficult unanimity to find. My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) will not mind my saying that he is an old hand at this game. He highlighted the difficulties of France and Ireland. I repeat that unanimity will be difficult to find. I should like to start where my right hon. Friend ended by saying that the Government believe that the Commission's proposals represent a reasonable balance between the many interests involved.
The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) made the point, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body), that it is not the Government who buy butter. It is the housewife who does that. The hon. Member for South Shields fully supported advertising, which is unusual for the Opposition. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston, the hon. Gentleman spoke about the value of generic advertising. He also emphasised that the Labour party wanted to fight for the New Zealanders. The hon. Member for Caerphilly also made that point.
In his delightful speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston pointed out the difficulties that New Zealanders have faced in finding other markets. However, despite those difficulties—I do not quarrel at this late hour with his specific examples they have found other markets. My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon will discover that Anchor butter will find other markets, that New Zealanders will continue to find markets abroad to meet their requirements and that they will continue to sell their butter here.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) was not fair to my right hon. Friend the Minister.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) should read the excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), because it encapsulated many things that needed to be said. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) was gracious enough to mention that speech. I assure him that the matter will be renegotiated and that we will again discuss the matter in the House. He spoke


specifically about 1992. The Community decision on the future level of New Zealand imports took into account a wide range of often conflicting factors.

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), to put the Questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings.

Question, That the amendment be made put and negatived.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8961/88 on New Zealand butter and of the Government's intention to pursue agreement to these proposals which meet the aim of establishing arrangements for the continued access of New Zealand butter on special terms for the period 1989–92 in a way which represents a reasonable balance between the interests of those involved.

PETITIONS

Settle-Carlisle Railway

Mr. Bob Cryer: It has been a long night, but I have been very willing to stay here until nearly 1 o'clock to present this petition on behalf of 2,000 people, many of them my constituents, to preserve the Settle-Carlisle railway as part of the national network.
As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Transport Users Consultative Committee is sending reports to the Minister, and British Rail has produced new figures to show that revenue on passenger traffic on the line has increased from £1 million to £1·7 million. Examination of the Ribblehead viaduct has demonstrated that the repair costs will be halved from the £5 million that British Rail claimed. The course is set fair for the retention of this beautiful railway which is useful not only for scenic visits by tourists but also as an important lifeline for people who live in the area.
I hope that, when the Minister sees on the Order Paper the 29 petitions with more than 80,000 signatures that were presented this week, he will recognise the strength of opinion about keeping this excellent lifeline, link, main-line route and beautiful engineering achievement as part of the national network. It gives me great pleasure to read the petition. It says:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
The Humble petition of the supporters of the Settle to Carlisle railway sheweth that the outstandingly beautiful and historic Settle-Carlisle railway provides an essential transport system for the people who live in the area; for people wishing to visit the area; for people travelling between the Midlands, Yorkshire and Scotland; for British Rail as a diversionary route; for British Rail to use as a potentially important freight route; and for hundreds of thousands of people who wish to enjoy the scenery near the line and the engineering heritage of the line itself.
Wherefore your petitioners pray that the Settle-Carlisle railway and the associated Blackburn-Hellifield railway, will be retained as an integral part of the national railway network.
And so say all of us.

To lie upon the Table.

Sir Richard Body: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I have your guidance? I too came with a petition in the same terms as that presented by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). I took the liberty of putting it in the bag to make sure that it reached the appropriate place as speedily as possible. I hope that I am in order when I say that I wholeheartedly support the petition and the hundreds of people who have signed it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is out of order. He has put his petition in the bag but he cannot present it without giving notice.

Mr. Andy Stewart: I wish to present a petition in the name of Mr. Robin Stewart Smith, 3 St Mary's drive, Edwinstowe and 1,000 other signatories in support of the retention of the Settle-Carlisle railway line.
The history of Sherwood forest is legendary, and my constituents share the views of the local people and others nationwide who want to protect this line for future generations. Like the petitioners, I hope that the railway line can be saved, and will join Sherwood forest as part of our famous heritage.

To lie upon the Table.

Council House Sales (Torbay)

1 am

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I wish to present a petition signed by more than half the council tenants of Torbay council—2,634 people—who are horrified by the undemocratic decision of the councillors to sell off their homes, despite an overwhelming vote against such a move by the tenants. The tenants point out:
after a vote of all Council tenants monitored by the Electoral Reform Society and where a majority of three to one tenants elected against the sale of their houses to a private landlord, the Torbay Borough Council chose to ignore that majority by inclusion of abstentions and non-voters as signifying acceptance.
This petition is signed by more than half the tenants because they want the House to be aware of the wishes of the majority. The petition ends:
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to (1) accept the straight majority vote, as is traditional in this land, and (2) maintain the Council's Housing Stock in the hands of the Torbay Borough Council as is the wish of the majority of tenants.

To lie upon the Table.

Settle-Carlisle Railway

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I present a second petition, which is signed by 2,771 people, who are horrified by the plans to sell off or close the Settle to Carlisle railway. The petitioners and I believe that this outstandingly beautiful and historic line provides an essential local transport link for the people who live there and for the people who are visiting the area. The livelihoods of some people depend upon it, and it is an essential and under-developed part of this nation's rail network. The finances are increasingly showing the viability of this railway line. The petition ends:


Wherefore your Petitioners pray that the Settle-Carlisle railway, and the associated Blackburn-Hellifield railway, will be retained as an integral part of the national railway network.

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. Garry Waller: I wish to present a petition on behalf of 4,000 people living in or near the Keighley constituency, which calls for the retention of the Settle-Carlisle railway. The signatories of the petition, with whom I strongly identify, believe that it is vital that the line should be retained for generations to come. I am proud to be a vice-president of the Friends of the Settle-Carlisle Line Association. Whether the future of the railway lies in the private or the public sector, we would not easily be forgiven if we allowed the commission of that act of vandalism that closure would constitute. The petition ends:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that the Settle-Carlisle railway, and the associated Blackburn-Hellifield railway, will be retained as an integral part of the railway network.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. Elliot Morley: I have two petitions to present. The first has over 1,000 signatures of supporters of the Settle-Carlisle railway. The fact that so many people in my constituency have signed the petition shows how important this railway is as part of a national rail network. These petitioners are calling for the Settle-Carlisle line to remain part of the network. It is a particularly beautiful railway, and is used and admired by many people from all parts of the country. It is because of

that that many people want to see that line remain as a functioning part of the rail network, and of our public transport system.

To lie upon the Table.

Seals

Mr. Elliot Morley: The second petition I wish to present is from the children of the Rochdale road junior school, and has over 150 names. They have signed a petition to show their concern about the fate of the seals in the North sea. It is a matter of great pride to me that the children of a school should show so much concern, and such organisation to send in this petition, signed by them and the staff of the school. The petition is a great credit to the children, and it is creditable that they have this concern about the environment, and that they know how to organise themselves and express themselves to the House, which has the ultimate power to do something about the matter.
The petition states:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom and Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the children of Rochdale Road Junior School, Scunthorpe in the constituency of Glanford and Scunthorpe, showeth that they are greatly concerned about the virus that has been decimating the seal population of the North Sea, particularly along the coast of the United Kingdom.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will urge the government to do all in its power to support research and provide resources to combat this virus and protect the seals.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray &amp;c.

To lie upon the Table.

RAF Upper Heyford

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sackville.]

Mr. Tony Baldry: I am grateful, even at this late hour, for the opportunity to raise an important issue so early in this Session of Parliament. I refer to the problem of noise levels at RAF Upper Heyford.
There has been an airfield at Upper Heyford since the late 1920s. For some time now it has been a major NATO air base. F111 aircraft have been based there since 1970 and their numbers were significantly increased by deployment of an additional squadron of EF111s in 1984. Local people have always recognised the contribution that the base may make to Britain's defences and acknowledge that the first duty of the realm is the defence of the realm. However, that public duty has to be balanced against the collective private interests and considerations of hundreds of people living in the proximity of the base.
RAF Upper Heyford lies in the Cherwell valley. The airfield has one physical runway which is aligned roughly on an east-west axis. To the west, literally at the end of the runway, lies the village of Upper Heyford with an adult population of about 1,750 people. A little further away, on the valley ridge, lies Steeple Aston with a population of approximately 860 and Middle Aston with a population of just over 100. At the other end of the runway, again right against the perimeter fence, lies the village of Ardley with a population of about 670. In total, about 2,400 adults and their children live very close to the base. There can be no airfield in Britain or, I suspect, in NATO where so many people and so many villages are so close to an airfield runway and so vulnerable to aircraft noise.
During the late 1960s, there was a substantial increase in aircraft activity at RAF Upper Heyford and thus an increase in aircraft noise. That led in turn to an increase in very real concern among local people that aircraft noise was making their lives intolerable. A survey carried out by some pupils at Bicester school in 1969 and 1970 stated:
the chairman of Steeple Aston Parish Council told us that the council had done everything possible, but with very little in the way of actual results. They have written to the Base Commander, attended many meetings at the Base, as well as writing to the Ministry of Defence (who only referred the letters back to Upper Heyford).
That sense of frustration in 1970 is undoubtedly experienced perhaps even more deeply today by the parish council and local residents who feel that officials simply are not listening to them.
However, in 1970, the Ministry of Defence realised that something had to be done to try to relieve the burden of aircraft noise on local people. The minutes of Steeple Aston parish council in September 1970 state:
In an endeavour to alleviate the noise, aircraft taking off from Upper Heyford were now instructed to turn 10 deg right as soon as possible after take-off. If it were possible with the compatibility of safety, it may be possible to turn more than 10 deg.
That was 1970. Following further public concern, these informal arrangements later became more formal.
Early in 1974, the United States air force experimented with and finally adopted a formal noise abatement flight pattern for departures to the west. The procedure involved a right turn before the aircraft had left the confines of the

airfield to avoid Upper Heyford village, following a line slightly to the north of Middle Aston and culminating in a left turn to avoid direct overflight of Duns Tew.
In 1984, as the result of suggestions from a civil airline pilot who lived in Ardley, basically a similar procedure was adopted for departures to the east of the base to avoid Ardley. Despite these noise abatement measures, there was still considerable aircraft noise. In fairness, however, householders in the worst affected villages qualified for noise insulation grants. From time to time there were complaints about aircraft straying from what were regarded as agreed flight paths, but the noise levels were at least tolerable.
What for a number of years had at least been tolerable levels of aircraft noise became intolerable in June of this year. On 24 May, the United States air force announced to local people that both noise abatement departure routes would cease to be used from 1 June. From then on planes would take off in a straight line and fly direct over the villages. That means that to the west of the base they fly directly over Upper Heyford and Steeple Aston. To the east, jets fly directly over Ardley. The official reason for such change was that over the years the F-111 aircraft have become heavier and the planes' thrust has remained the same. Thus, on the ground of safety it had become necessary to straighten the flight paths. The consequence of the change was that the levels of aircraft noise were no longer tolerable. Instead, they became intolerable.
My hon. Friend the Minister came to RAF Upper Heyford to learn more about the situation for himself. In consequence, the United States air force was asked, during the latter part of the summer, to experiment with flying slightly different flight patterns over the area to ascertain whether any improvement could be made. Simultaneously with these experiments, noise tests were carried out by the RAF institute of community health and the Cherwell district council, the council being the environmental health authority.
A combination of these experimental flight patterns and extensive noise tests have led in due course to a slightly modified flight pattern. The results of the tests to the west of the base have now been published. They show that, while there has been a slight reduction in noise levels in the southern end of Steeple Aston, the modified flight paths have meant a substantial increase in noise for Middle Aston. Much of Steeple Aston and Middle Aston now lie within a 78 dBA contour. Amazingly, the noise tests by the RAF institute of community health in the Ardley area, to the east of the base, have not yet been completed. However, there is every reason to believe that, given the results that have been obtained by Cherwell district council and a straightforward extrapolation of the noise footprint elsewhere, a substantial part of Ardley will now come within the 83 dBA contour.
What do the figures mean? I can inform the House that 70 dBA is the level at which the Ministry of Defence pays for houses to have noise insulation grants. So there is a clear public recognition that any household that has continually to endure those levels of noise merits some compensation and the ability to have its home insulated. I am concerned about substantially greater noise levels. There is not time in this debate to discuss in detail the way in which noise is measured, but it is important to remember that it is a logarithmic scale, not a linear progression.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment recently refused a planning appeal in the Cherwell valley because the background noise was 73 dBA. The local district council recently took enforcement proceedings against a factory in a nearby built-up area where noise levels were in in the mid 60s dBA. By contrast, many local people are expected to live with noise levels of 77 dBA and 78 dBA and more. That is somewhat akin to the count of a tube train reaching peak speed and crossing line junctions. We should remember that the report from the RAF institute of community health produced average readings. Contained within them are some very hig spot readings. Individual planes passing close over people's homes cause real physical pain and distress.
I know that my hon. Friend the Minister has received many letters from local people which set out very clearly the depth of discomfort that they now experience. Nor should we forget that, in consequence of the change in the flight path, Dr. Radcliffe's school at Steeple Aston is now immediately below the flight path. As the Bishop of Oxford, in a letter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, said, the school is
now suffering intolerable noise levels.
If, as expected, the noise levels in Ardley are in excess of 83 dBA, the MOD will be obliged to offer to purchase all the houses—an Oxfordshire village. To the west of the base 13 properties in Upper Heyford are clearly within the 83 dBA contour and I understand that the Secretary of State for Defence will be offering to purchase those homes in due course.
People do not want their homes bought; they want quieter homes. There has been a village at Ardley since before the Norman conquest, and villagers do not want the village to be purchased. They simply want to see a substantial amelioration in the present noise levels or, as posters in the village now claim, they want "church bells, not decibels."
Many people experience intolerable levels of noise, and relief must be found. That relief can only come from the MOD. As it is an MOD air base, private individuals have no relief to abate the nuisance in the courts, and the local environmental health authority has no statutory powers to make the nuisance cease. However, let there be no doubt that, had this been a factory or anything other than an installation exempt by statute, local people could have obtained relief by an injunction in the courts and the local environmental health authority would certainly have sought to abate the nuisance by enforcement procedures.
There is a simple constitutional point. The RAF and the United States air force are answerable to Ministers and Ministers are answerable and accountable to the House. My hon. Friend the Minister will have seen that 75 right hon. and hon. Members have signed early-day motion 22. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend and colleague and neighbour the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) for sponsoring that motion. The most recent signature to that motion is that of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) who is in the Chamber tonight. Early-day motion 22 urges the MOD to investigate without delay measures to relieve substantially aircraft noise, including the possible realignment of the runway.
This issue will not go away until a solution is found. Since early-day motion 22 was tabled, I have been encouraged by the sizeable number of right hon. and hon. Members who have expressed their support for speedy

action. My hon. Friend the Minister will doubtless tell the House that realigning the runway is a very expensive option. I understand that he estimates that that would cost more than £50 million. If the Ministry feels that in the totality of its budget that is too expensive, the burden of responsibility is on the Minister to come up with a workable and cost-effective solution.
The MOD has the technical expertise and knowledge. Tonight the House wants to know what the MOD is doing to find a solution. The status quo is clearly not sustainable, and changes need to be made without delay.
On television, my hon. Friend said that he
… will want to see over time what effect this really does have on the local villages.
I do not believe that there can be any doubt whatsoever about the effect of the changes of flight path on local people and local villages. The effect is devastating. No more time is needed to confirm that. It will be no good for my hon. Friend simply to hold out the vague hope of some uncertain solution at some unspecified date in the future. People living in the proximity of Upper Heyford want to know today what action the Ministry of Defence intends to take to resolve the problem.
Finally, I express this caution to my hon. Friend. Local people have been very patient. Six months have passed since the change in flight paths was introduced. They have placed their trust in the parliamentary system. If that system does not produce a result, they will feel increasingly antipathetic towards their American neighbours. and in time, I fear, increasingly hostile to their presence. I am sure that my hon. Friend and the United States air force realise that it would be a matter of real concern if the base were to exhaust local support. Thus, I hope that this evening we shall start to hear of some real solutions.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Roger Freeman): My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) has presented the problem with characteristic clarity. I am aware of the considerable concern of those who live in his constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), which is also affected. I am well aware, through reports in the media and correspondence received from my hon. Friends and from members of the public, of the very deep concerns that they have, and, I understand them.
The problems of Upper Heyford as a military airfield, and the problems of noise associated with military aircraft, are not unique. I regret that there are no simple solutions. I hope that I shall be able to convey to the House my concern and that of the Ministry of Defence, and outline one or two positive constructive steps that we plan to take.
The history of RAF Upper Heyford began during world war 1, when the base was used for training purposes. During world war 2, Upper Heyford again played a training role at first, eventually becoming a Royal Air Force bomber station in 1943. In 1969 it was announced that the base would become home to the 20th Tactical Figher Wing of the USAF which was to be re-equipped with the F-111E swing-wing fighter bomber. A large modernisation and construction programme was carried out at the base to enable it to accommodate the F-111E, and the first aircraft of the planned three squadrons arrived in September 1970. The three squadrons of F-111Es were joined in 1983 by one squadron of the EF-111A—ėlectronic counter-measures support aircraft.


Those aircraft provide long-range, all-weather tactical fighter bomber and electronic combat sorties for NATO and are a vital part of the Alliance's range of deterrent forces.
The United States air force presence at Upper Heyford therefore goes back more than 30 years, and during that time the base has received the support and the hospitality of the local community. I am very grateful for that support, which continues to this day, despite the current problems, and I know that this gratitude is shared by the United States air force. The base has worked hard to reciprocate that support. One of the ways in which it has done so was the introduction in 1976, as my hon. Friend said, in response to representations from the local community about aircraft noise, of a noise abatement take-off pattern for aircraft departing to the west. That manoeuvre involved the aircraft making a steep banking turn to the right immediately on take-off, followed very shortly by another turn to the left. That procedure aimed successfully, to reduce the noise levels experienced by villages near the end of the runway. In 1984 a noise-abatement pattern was introduced for aircraft departing to the east, with the same aim. However, the F-111 is undoubtedly a noisy aeroplane, and noise levels around the base were still high. Consequently, in 1986, following a noise survey by the RAF's institute of community and occupational medicine, a noise compensation scheme was introduced. That provided for those homes within the 12-hour average 70 dBA noise contour to be given grants for noise insulation work and for the Ministry to purchase homes within the 83 dBA noise contour, of which there was only one at that time.
Our prime responsibility towards the communities around the base is to ensure that the flying activities there are carried out as safely as possible. To that end, the safety of flying operations at the base, as elsewhere, is kept under constant review. That process led the United States air force to the conclusion, earlier this year, that changes in the thrust-to-weight ratio of the F-111E since the noise abatement patterns were introduced had led to an erosion of the safety margins for those patterns to an unacceptable, though not currently dangerous, degree. Typically, an F-111 E on an operational sortie is some 6 per cent. heavier now than it would have been 10 years ago, consequently reducing the thrust-to-weight ratio, while there has been an associated increase in the drag factor. Those changes did not occur all at once, but step-by-step over the 10-year period.
Bearing in mind its responsibilities for those over whom it flies as well as the safety of the aircrew themselves, the United States air force prudently requested that it be allowed to revert to the standard direct take-off employed at other military airbases, and, indeed, as previously used at Upper Heyford. I endorsed that request and the changes in take-off patterns were made with effect from 1 June this year.
We expected that the changes would increase noise levels in several of the villages around the base, notably Steeple Aston and Ardley, but we took into account the fact that Steeple Aston had lived with the straight-ahead pattern from 1970 to 1976, while Ardley had done so from 1970 to 1984, although neither village could be expected to welcome a return to the earlier patterns. In addition, when

visibility was bad the aircraft had in any case generally used the straight-ahead pattern directly over Steeple Aston or Ardley. I commissioned a full noise survey by scientists of the RAF's institute of community and occupational medicine for this autumn, taking account of the changes to which I have already referred. I also arranged for my officials and officers at the base to brief locally elected representatives of the communities likely to be affected—and indeed my hon. Friend—before the changes took place.
In the event, it became clear that the increased noise levels had given rise to considerable local concern especially in respect of the Dr. Ratcliffe school in Steeple Aston. I accept that they also affect other residents. Those concerns were ably and forcefully represented by my hon. Friend and, as a result, I visited RAF Upper Heyford and Steeple Aston soon after the change in take-off patterns to assess the situation for myself. During my visit I announced that I had decided to take three steps in the light of my hon. Friend's representations: first, that the Ministry of Defence would, in principle, on an exceptional basis, pay for sound insulation work at the Dr. Ratcliffe school in Steeple Aston; secondly, that the United States air force would carry out an evaluation of alternative operating patterns aimed at identifying a means of reducing the noise levels then being experienced by many local people; and, thirdly, that the full noise survey planned for the autumn would be brought forward to this summer. The work on all three of those areas has been pressed forward as swiftly as practicable and I shall outline where we now stand on each.
First, the governors of the Dr. Ratcliffe school have commissioned a firm of consultants, for which the Ministry is paying, to advise them on a suitable noise insulation scheme for the school. We shall pay for the necessary work to be carried out and I hope that it will be possible to begin that during the Christmas holidays.
Secondly, the United States air force tried out a modification whereby the aircraft made a gentle turn to take the aircraft between the villages of Steeple and Middle Aston, coupled with an earlier termination of the aircraft's afterburners. That modified pattern has been employed by the F-111s taking off from the base to the west since mid-August, and the results of the noise survey indicate that it has produced some reduction in the noise level in most of Steeple Aston. For example, the average noise level at the bus stop in the centre of Steeple Aston was 77·5 dBA prior to the introduction of the modified take-off path, and 72·3 subsequently. It has also reduced noise levels in Lower Heyford.
The modified take-off pattern has a further advantage. The old noise abatement pattern could not be flown in bad weather and so aircraft from the base used to overfly Steeple Aston perhaps as much as 17 per cent. of the time during the winter months. The modified path can be used in bad weather as well as in good, and so aircraft from the base no longer directly overfly the village of Steeple Aston because of bad weather.
Thirdly, the noise survey for the western end of the airfield has now been completed. The work on the eastern end, in which direction there are significantly fewer departures, is not yet complete because there have not been a sufficient number of flying days for correct observations to be taken. We are not delaying matters. The report for the western end of the runway shows that the noise levels in Steeple Aston and Upper Heyford in


particular are higher than they were prior to 1 June and recommends the introduction of a revised noise compensation scheme at the base. This revised scheme will include an offer from the Ministry of Defence to purchase 13 properties in Upper Heyford which lie within the 83 dBA 12-hour noise contour.
I am today able to announce a further step which I hope will be welcome to my hon. Friend, although it is not a complete answer, and I shall come on to further planned steps in a moment. As my hon. Friend is aware, in addition to providing noise insulation grants for residents who are subject to average noise levels in excess of 70 dBA, the Ministry of Defence allows claims for injurious affection compensation where there is evidence to show that there has been an adverse effect on the value of residential property and certain small businesses as a direct result of an increase in noise or other physical effects following the bringing into use of new public works at an airfield. I feel sure that my hon. Friend will be pleased to learn that, although strictly speaking there are no new public works, exceptionally my Department will be able to consider claims for injurious affection from those concerned. I shall announce full details when the revised noise compensation scheme at RAF Upper Heyford is introduced.
My hon. Friend especially mentioned the possibility of realigning the runway at RAF Upper Heyford as a possible solution to the remaining problems. I am aware that I have been talking principally about noise compensation schemes and not, as my hon. Friend said, tackling the fundamental problems. I have to say that there are significant difficulties with this proposal, not least of which is that realigning the runway so that aircraft no longer take-off toward Steeple and Middle Aston can only serve to create problems elsewhere. Although, perhaps, not as severe, they will none the less be unwelcome to the people they affect.
Such a project would also be extremely costly, because it would involve the demolition and reprovision of expensive support facilities, as well as simply building a new runway. In addition, there would be operational problems caused by the disruption of moving the aircraft to another base while the work was done; and, indeed, the problem of finding another base at which to put them and the large numbers of associated personnel. However, I can tell my hon. Friend that we will, as he asked, carry out a full study of the costs and implications of realigning the runway. We will make the results public and I shall write to my hon. Friend when the work is complete.
When I visited Upper Heyford some months ago to see and hear for myself the problems involving military

aircraft, I promised that I would return to the base once the full study had been completed, and I hope that it will be completed not only comprehensively but quickly. I shall then meet my hon. Friend and his constituents to explain the results of the study and to explore what further steps can be taken.

Mr. Baldry: May I make it clear to my hon. Friend that, while, of course, I am grateful for the fact that he will carry out a full technical survey of the feasibility of realigning the runway, he has made it clear on a number of occasions that there is a cost involved, and he has made it clear publicly that he is worried about that and the technical feasibility of it. However, can one understand that the Ministry of Defence will consider other technical options? The Ministry clearly knows the capabilities of these planes, and it should not just be a question of considering whet her it is possible to realign the runway. Other options that may be available to relieve aircraft noise in this area should also be considered.

Mr. Freeman: I give my hon. Friend that assurance. Our minds are certainly not closed. We are sympathetic to the problems. As I said at the outset, there are no simple solutions. If there were, we would have taken them. Certainly my mind is open, and we shall continue to explore with the United States air force and with our own experts possible solutions to the problem.
To sum up, I very much regret that the change of take-off patterns at RAF Upper Heyford this summer has led to an increase in the levels of disturbance experienced by many of those who live in the vicinity of the airfield. I apologise to those who have experienced distress because of this disturbance. However, I have to say that the changes were necessary because of the need to maximise the safety of flying operations from the base. As such, the changes were in the interests of all concerned, the local community as well as the aircrew, since I believe that one point on which we would all agree is the need to do our utmost to reduce the chances of an accident.
I hope that I have shown that the concerns that my hon. Friend has so ably presented on behalf of his constituents have been taken very seriously by the Ministry of Defence, by myself and by the US air force, and that we have responded, and will continue to respond, in a constructive and helpful way.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Two o'clock.